[Ipopt] Binaries for Windows

Ruhollah Tavakoli rohtav at gmail.com
Fri Mar 6 11:27:17 EST 2009


Thanks for your work, I'm very interested to a CMake for IPOPT.

I think that ipopt developers did not show interest to this issue, probably
due to un-familarity with CMake. I know it based on my experience with VTK
library and I'm belive that it's much better and easier to use that
autoconfig tools.



Andreas: CMake stuff can be available besides to other things, so you do not
miss anything, else having an additional choice for user to select his own
method to produce makefile

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Jesse Perla <jesseperla at gmail.com> wrote:

>   > We have no intention to change the build system. What we have now is
>> > based on autotools and has been working pretty well on most platforms,
>> > including Windows via Cygwin or MSys. The Ipopt configure and build
>> > system is also aligned with the rest of COIN; making any change here
>> > has mayor painful consequences ;-)
>> I second that -- I use Mingw/MSYS on Windows and consider support for
>> that platform as well as MinGW GCC to be a 'must-have' in IPOPT.
> Sorry everyone, I didn't mean to audaciously suggest that everything should
> move to CMake and that Mingw/MSYS shouldn't be supported.  All I meant was
> that it was very easy to port to CMake and  that you get everything for free
> after that.  And since IPOPT is distributing a set of "Visual Studio"
> projects, and what I meant to suggest was that CMake was a good alternative
> to this Visual Studio distribution.  It is easily decouple library
> dependencies, easier to write/maintain, and you get a build on any other
> platform for free.  Anytime I have mentioned variations on windows binaries
> for debug, etc., the answer has been that it is a pain in the ass.  Which it
> is... but with CMake, it would be a few simple batch file to generate every
> permutation of windows binaries.
> With that said, I think people in the linux world tend to overestimate the
> value of mingw/msys for libraries.  It is certainly necessary, but the
> binary incompatibility with Intel/MSVC makes it almost useless for a lot of
> applications with libraries. Cygwin/msys builds tend to force you to
> recompile everything on your own which makes concurrent integration with
> other libraries than IPOPT tough.  I received a number of personal emails
> after my last post, so believe me when I say there is a lot of demand for
> native windows.
> I am over-committed on work right now, but I will post up CMake files and
> notes as soon as I get a chance.  In the meantime, contact me at will:
> jesse.perla at nyu.edu and if anyone is interested in using MUMPS, they could
> try out: http://sourceforge.net/projects/winmumps/
> May we one day be free from the shackles of autohell and those godawful
> visual studio project files.
> -Jesse
> _______________________________________________
> Ipopt mailing list
> Ipopt at list.coin-or.org
> http://list.coin-or.org/mailman/listinfo/ipopt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.coin-or.org/pipermail/ipopt/attachments/20090306/d81e6e9f/attachment.html 

More information about the Ipopt mailing list