Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Qt Developers Reconsider MinGW For Qt 5.0

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Qt Developers Reconsider MinGW For Qt 5.0

    Phoronix: Qt Developers Reconsider MinGW For Qt 5.0

    While we're now up to the Qt 5.0 beta stage, Qt developers are still settling for what MinGW implementation to use for the Windows build of Qt 5.0...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE3NDI

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    I've been cross-compiling Qt from Linux to Windows for a couple of years now. That way you can use the latest GCC version without having to wait for mingw to update their Windows version of it. Works like a charm.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Yeah I was dying to find that out. Now if we could find out which version of emacs they use.
    Seriously, who cares about all that?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adiyaman, Turkey
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Is there any reason to use the MinGW builds, since there are official VS builds available, which are more "native"?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bug77 View Post
    Seriously, who cares about all that?
    Who cares about how the world's most used cross-platform GUI framework compiles on the world's most used operating system? Err... Quite a lot of people.

    Of course, if you don't use develop for/with Qt on Windows - then why are you even reading this article?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cbamber85 View Post
    Who cares about how the world's most used cross-platform GUI framework compiles on the world's most used operating system? Err... Quite a lot of people.

    Of course, if you don't use develop for/with Qt on Windows - then why are you even reading this article?
    Maybe, but once it's released, it will be pretty obvious how it's compiled. Do we need news, months in advance, telling us that nothing is set in stone yet? I'm pretty sure anyone interested in this is following Qt mailing lists already.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    632

    Default

    I personally have a very good experience using the "unstable" 4.7 builds of mingw-w64, both 32bit and 64bit, and this includes C, C++ and QT code.
    Furthermore, mingw-w64 is an official part of Fedora 17, letting me develop and test the Windows side of my code from within Fedora (compile via mingw, test using wine) without wasting time booting the Windows XP/7 VMs unless I'm testing "final" code.

    - Gilboa
    DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB, GTX780, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711.
    SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F20/x86_64, Dell U2412..
    BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F20/x86-64.
    LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F20/x86_64.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,328

    Default

    One thing that surprised me in mingw64 is that if you don't specify a min version, it creates a binary that doesn't run on XP. (requires 5.2 by default, XP is 5.1)

    Regular mingw (at least used to) give win95 as a default minimum.


    Certainly a curious default to put in, when XP still has such a huge market share.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    One thing that surprised me in mingw64 is that if you don't specify a min version, it creates a binary that doesn't run on XP. (requires 5.2 by default, XP is 5.1)

    Regular mingw (at least used to) give win95 as a default minimum.


    Certainly a curious default to put in, when XP still has such a huge market share.
    I suppose they figure that you would be using mingw instead of mingw64 for 32-bit operating systems so the only time you would have to specify a min version on a 64-bit OS is for XP 64 support which wasn't that popular.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    One thing that surprised me in mingw64 is that if you don't specify a min version, it creates a binary that doesn't run on XP. (requires 5.2 by default, XP is 5.1)
    Regular mingw (at least used to) give win95 as a default minimum.
    Certainly a curious default to put in, when XP still has such a huge market share.
    I haven't faced this issue.
    Which parameter sets the minimum Windows version? (I can't seem to find anything in the mingw-gcc man page)
    Different mingw-w64 build options / version?

    - Gilboa
    DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB, GTX780, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711.
    SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F20/x86_64, Dell U2412..
    BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F20/x86-64.
    LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F20/x86_64.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •