| Trolltech Home | Qt-interest Home | Recent Threads | All Threads | Author | Date | |
| All threads index page 5 | |
what is the best solution if i like to have a 32bit and a 64bit version of QT on my development machine ? I'm using the commercial edition of QT (and i am a bit disappointed that there is no prebuilt 64bit Version available) on Vista64 and i like to build Projects in 32bit Versions as well as in 64 bit Versions. Should i recompile my installed QT or should i put my installed binary version side by side with the commercial src release and build the src-release for use with 64 bit ? regards Martin Schreiber -- [ signature omitted ]
Martin Schreiber wrote: > what is the best solution if i like to have a 32bit and a 64bit > version of QT on my development machine ? > I'm using the commercial edition of QT (and i am a bit disappointed > that there is no prebuilt 64bit Version available) on Vista64 and i > like to build Projects in 32bit Versions as well as in 64 bit > Versions. > > Should i recompile my installed QT or should i put my installed binary > version side by side with the commercial src release and build the > src-release for use with 64 bit ? I made a copy of the Qt source tree and rebuilt it using a 64 bit Visual Studio shell. Works very well. -- [ signature omitted ]
Paul Miller wrote: > Martin Schreiber wrote: >> what is the best solution if i like to have a 32bit and a 64bit >> version of QT on my development machine ? >> I'm using the commercial edition of QT (and i am a bit disappointed >> that there is no prebuilt 64bit Version available) on Vista64 and i >> like to build Projects in 32bit Versions as well as in 64 bit >> Versions. >> >> Should i recompile my installed QT or should i put my installed binary >> version side by side with the commercial src release and build the >> src-release for use with 64 bit ? > > I made a copy of the Qt source tree and rebuilt it using a 64 bit > Visual Studio shell. Works very well. > Could you be more precisely about what you did? Soon I will have to port my application to 64 bit Windows OS (XP or Vista) . Vladimir -- [ signature omitted ]
Vladimir Romanovskiy wrote: > Paul Miller wrote: >> Martin Schreiber wrote: >>> what is the best solution if i like to have a 32bit and a 64bit >>> version of QT on my development machine ? >>> I'm using the commercial edition of QT (and i am a bit disappointed >>> that there is no prebuilt 64bit Version available) on Vista64 and i >>> like to build Projects in 32bit Versions as well as in 64 bit >>> Versions. >>> >>> Should i recompile my installed QT or should i put my installed binary >>> version side by side with the commercial src release and build the >>> src-release for use with 64 bit ? >> >> I made a copy of the Qt source tree and rebuilt it using a 64 bit >> Visual Studio shell. Works very well. >> > Could you be more precisely about what you did? Soon I will have to port > my application to 64 bit Windows OS (XP or Vista) . Sure - though I should point out that I had to build Qt on a 64 bit Windows machine. When building in a 64 bit shell on a 32 bit box, it built qmake, then tried to run the new qmake to build the rest of Qt but failed, since qmake was now 64 bits and wouldn't run. So, you need a 64 bit windows box (I used a XP 64 VM on VMWare) with Visual Studio installed. Copy your Qt Windows source over and unpack it normally. Open a 64 bit shell with "Open Visual Studio 2005 x64 Cross Tools Command Prompt" (assuming you are using VS 2005), then just go to your Qt sources, run configure, then nmake as normal. -- [ signature omitted ]
On Wednesday 23 April 2008 10:43:19 Martin Schreiber wrote: > I'm using the commercial edition of QT (and i am a bit disappointed > that there is no prebuilt 64bit Version available) The reason that there is no 64-bit version available is that there's not enough demand. People writing 64-bit applications are very few and far between and usually have powerful machines. So those people, like you, can afford to build from sources again. Besides, adding a 64-bit build means setting up the environment for it, making sure we have enough disk space in our servers and making sure someone is testing the built packages before we release. Right now, we only have to build Win64 from sources. -- [ signature omitted ]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Ok for your arguments, but at least I wish Trolltech could provide a "one-click-no-question-asked-solution" to build the 64 bit version in the same tree (at least for the commercial customers). VS20008 can build 32 and 64 bit targets eg. under sole XP 32 and I wish this could be possible to build Qt 32/64 too. Philippe On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:34:51 +0200 Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday 23 April 2008 10:43:19 Martin Schreiber wrote: > > I'm using the commercial edition of QT (and i am a bit disappointed > > that there is no prebuilt 64bit Version available) > > The reason that there is no 64-bit version available is that there's not > enough demand. People writing 64-bit applications are very few and far > between and usually have powerful machines. So those people, like you, can > afford to build from sources again. > > Besides, adding a 64-bit build means setting up the environment for it, making > sure we have enough disk space in our servers and making sure someone is > testing the built packages before we release. > > Right now, we only have to build Win64 from sources. > > -- > Thiago José Macieira - thiago.macieira AT trolltech.com > Trolltech ASA - Sandakerveien 116, NO-0402 Oslo, Norway -- [ signature omitted ]
On Wednesday 23 April 2008 16:04:43 Philippe wrote: > Ok for your arguments, but at least I wish Trolltech could provide a > "one-click-no-question-asked-solution" to build the 64 bit version in > the same tree (at least for the commercial customers). VS20008 can build > 32 and 64 bit targets eg. under sole XP 32 and I wish this could be > possible to build Qt 32/64 too. Unlike MacOS X, Windows does not support fat binaries. Well, at least, not that I know of. So we can't put two architectures in the same packages without installing them to different trees. Besides, the downloads are quite large already. I'm looking at the VS 2005 package now and it is 121 MB in size. -- [ signature omitted ]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Quoting Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wednesday 23 April 2008 16:04:43 Philippe wrote: >> Ok for your arguments, but at least I wish Trolltech could provide a >> "one-click-no-question-asked-solution" to build the 64 bit version in >> the same tree (at least for the commercial customers). VS20008 can build >> 32 and 64 bit targets eg. under sole XP 32 and I wish this could be >> possible to build Qt 32/64 too. > > Unlike MacOS X, Windows does not support fat binaries. Well, at least, not > that I know of. So we can't put two architectures in the same packages > without installing them to different trees. Off-topic but that makes me remember the "good" old OS/2 age, where you'd have the same executable for both OS/2 and DOS: http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/OSI_Executables > > Besides, the downloads are quite large already. I'm looking at the VS 2005 > package now and it is 121 MB in size. -- [ signature omitted ]
> On Wednesday 23 April 2008 16:04:43 Philippe wrote: > > Ok for your arguments, but at least I wish Trolltech could provide a > > "one-click-no-question-asked-solution" to build the 64 bit version in > > the same tree (at least for the commercial customers). VS20008 can > > build > > 32 and 64 bit targets eg. under sole XP 32 and I wish this could be > > possible to build Qt 32/64 too. > > Unlike MacOS X, Windows does not support fat binaries. Well, at least, > not that I know of. So we can't put two architectures in the same > packages without installing them to different trees. > > Besides, the downloads are quite large already. I'm looking at the VS > 2005 package now and it is 121 MB in size. Thank you for realizing that :) However, a possible solution. For windows have an additional release that is similar to the QT 3.X windows release system. Ie, the installer was a build system wrapper, rather than a prebuilt installer system. This way TT puts out the "common" prebuilt for windows, probably VS 2003, and 2005 32 bit. But had the old style installer for those stuck on older dev studios (if they are still supported) or those who need newer but not common releases. Scott -- [ signature omitted ]
Scott Aron Bloom wrote: >> On Wednesday 23 April 2008 16:04:43 Philippe wrote: >>> Ok for your arguments, but at least I wish Trolltech could provide a >>> "one-click-no-question-asked-solution" to build the 64 bit version > in >>> the same tree (at least for the commercial customers). VS20008 can >>> build >>> 32 and 64 bit targets eg. under sole XP 32 and I wish this could be >>> possible to build Qt 32/64 too. >> Unlike MacOS X, Windows does not support fat binaries. Well, at least, >> not that I know of. So we can't put two architectures in the same >> packages without installing them to different trees. >> >> Besides, the downloads are quite large already. I'm looking at the VS >> 2005 package now and it is 121 MB in size. > > Thank you for realizing that :) > > However, a possible solution. For windows have an additional release > that is similar to the QT 3.X windows release system. > > Ie, the installer was a build system wrapper, rather than a prebuilt > installer system. > > This way TT puts out the "common" prebuilt for windows, probably VS > 2003, and 2005 32 bit. But had the old style installer for those stuck > on older dev studios (if they are still supported) or those who need > newer but not common releases. (just throwing my 2c in here) I'm not opposed to that either, since I always have to rebuild my Qt kits anyway. For example, to get a working debug Qt on Windows, I had to recompile it with my version of VS2005. It wouldn't let me step into Qt without doing that first, when I used the pre-built debug libs. -- [ signature omitted ]
What is the status of building x64 with eclipse instead of VS?
Well... considering eclipse is not a compiler... but a dev environment, I would think it would be tied to which compiler and OS platform your using From: Naja Melan [mailto:najamelan@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:11 AM To: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: using 32bit and 64bit QT What is the status of building x64 with eclipse instead of VS?
Paul Miller wrote: >I'm not opposed to that either, since I always have to rebuild my Qt >kits anyway. For example, to get a working debug Qt on Windows, I had to >recompile it with my version of VS2005. It wouldn't let me step into Qt >without doing that first, when I used the pre-built debug libs. That could be caused by the fact that we used to compile Qt with the original VS2005 release and you might have VS 2005 SP1. The 4.4 release will come out compiled with that version. Let us know if anything changes. -- [ signature omitted ]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Well… considering eclipse is not a compiler… but a dev environment, I would think it would be tied to which compiler and OS platform your using Ok, let me reformulate that question. As Qt doesn't support VS for open source development, what is the status of compiling 64 bits on windows for open source developers? naja
Qt can be compiled without any problems using both 32-bit and 64-bit Visual Studio compiler and Qt Open Source license doesn't forbid or restrict that. AFAIK, open source version of Qt just doesn't provide integration tools like Qt Designer integrated into VS IDE. On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:15:04 +0400, Naja Melan <najamelan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Well... considering eclipse is not a compiler? but a dev environment, I > would > think it would be tied to which compiler and OS platform your using > > Ok, > > let me reformulate that question. As Qt doesn't support VS for open > source > development, what is the status of compiling 64 bits on windows for open > source developers? > > naja -- [ signature omitted ]