<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><DIV>On Jul 26, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Nicolas Bertolotti wrote:</DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceType"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"><DIV class="Section1"><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" face="Arial"><SPAN lang="EN-GB" style=""><FONT class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000" face="Helvetica" size="3"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;">I</SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial">’m interested in getting a Win64 version of MLton. Now the 64 bits port for Linux (and also other targets as I could read some messages about it on the mailing list) is getting stable, I guess it should not be too complex to update the MinGW <ST1:PLACE w:st="on"><ST1:PLACETYPE w:st="on">port</ST1:PLACETYPE> of <ST1:PLACENAME w:st="on">MLton</ST1:PLACENAME></ST1:PLACE> for Win64.</SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></BLOCKQUOTE>In contrast to skaller, I think this is the way forward. MinGW is a very thin wrapper that provides most of what a UNIX-ish app like MLton needs. As you can still link to and FFI to MS compiled code, there's little downside.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceType"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"><DIV class="Section1"><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" face="Arial"><SPAN lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" face="Arial"><SPAN lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial"><O:P><SPAN lang="EN-GB" style="">Unfortunately, MinGW is not yet available for Win64. The gcc port is definitely not stable (the binutils seem to run fine) and the MinGW headers and libraries are still experimental.</SPAN></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV>Are you in a hurry? I'm sure that gcc for windows will work in the near future. Fixing any problems in the MinGW headers once gcc works seems like much less work than trying to port MLton and its dependencies to MS's compiler.</DIV><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceType"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"><DIV class="Section1"><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" face="Arial"><SPAN lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial"><O:P><SPAN lang="EN-GB" style="">The fact we need MinGW to use MLton on Windows seems to be an obstacle in terms of portability and the fact it does not require it anymore would make life (at least mine ;-)) easier.</SPAN></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV>How do you mean "does not require it anymore"? I'd not heard of anyone porting MLton to a non-gcc compiler?</DIV></DIV><BR><DIV>In the meantime, 32-bit applications still work great (and use less memory). So unless need >2GB of memory in a MLton app, you're not missing much.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></BODY></HTML>