[GRASS5] CygWIN: compilation of current CVS HEAD?

Roger Bivand Roger.Bivand at nhh.no
Fri Feb 7 03:45:12 EST 2003

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Glynn Clements wrote:

> Roger Bivand wrote:
> > > If there exists a choice between Unix and Windows versions of R,
> > > choosing the Unix version is likely to result in better compatibility
> > > with GRASS.
> > 
> > R on Windows will not build under CygWin. On the Windows platform, MinGW
> > is the chosen build train, following which R runs natively. One can
> > complain that it ought to be CygWin, but the reaction is to invite the
> > complainer to become R Windows maintainer.
> I'm just pointing out that the only way to use GRASS on Windows is via
> Cygwin. If R can't use Cygwin, and GRASS can only use Cygwin, that
> suggests that the GRASS/R combination may be inherently problematic.
If the CygWin gcc compiled lisgib.a makes other assumptions about its 
environment (compile train setup etc.) than the MinGW compiled grassR.dll 
to be dynamically loaded into R, yes, but experience (limited) so far 
suggests that it is not a major issue. If there were major differences 
between the two gcc header file trees, you would get unexpected and, yes, 
problematic, results. R and its dlls will also use the underlying C 
libraries of MinGW. But providing that the two gcc's present the same 
API's to R and GRASS, experience (again limited) indicates that - against 
my expectations - it does work. One advantage of the R package formalisms 
is that the functions need to be able to run their examples to completion, 
which they certainly wouldn't do if the two gcc's had diverged. 



Roger Bivand
Economic Geography Section, Department of Economics, Norwegian School of
Economics and Business Administration, Breiviksveien 40, N-5045 Bergen,
Norway. voice: +47 55 95 93 55; fax +47 55 95 93 93
e-mail: Roger.Bivand at nhh.no

More information about the grass-dev mailing list