From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05CE9BC69 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:36:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from furbychan.cocan.org (furbychan.cocan.org [80.68.91.176]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l7LIacTr013905 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:36:38 +0200 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1INYaj-00005G-00; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:36:37 +0100 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:36:37 +0100 To: David Allsopp Cc: OCaml List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCam'OLE using MinGW Toolchain Message-ID: <20070821183637.GB32626@furbychan.cocan.org> References: <002801c7e36e$fad6fe50$6a7ba8c0@treble> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <002801c7e36e$fad6fe50$6a7ba8c0@treble> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Richard Jones X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 46CB30B6.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocam'ole:01 mingw:01 toolchain:01 0100,:01 elegantly:01 mingw:01 o'caml:01 gcc:01 makefile:01 toolchain:01 20,:98 wrote:01 msvc:01 msvc:01 caml-list:01 On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 10:13:38PM +0100, David Allsopp wrote: > Just been having a rummage around on the Hump and came across OCaml'OLE - a > glance at the sample code suggests that it wraps COM interfaces quite > elegantly (not as transparently as VB6 did, but somewhere close). The snag > that I've hit is that I use the MinGW version of O'Caml built from source > and don't really want to install the MSVC port alongside... has anyone > managed to build OCaml'OLE using gcc+MinGW and if so do they have a > Makefile? :o) I'm afraid not, but I have done OCaml'OLE with MSVC and that was pretty easy. Well, except for a number of bugs in the M$ toolchain, like one where the linker just didn't bother to link parts of the generated code (I had to edit down the OLE-generated code by hand to get around that one...). So you'll be better off with the MinGW chain probably :-) Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat