On Dec 14, 2007 1:37 PM, Petr Sobotka <sobotkap at gmail.com> wrote: > 2007/12/14, Brian Cameron <Brian.Cameron at sun.com>: > > > > Roman: > > > > >> However, I think I'm trying to encourage > > >> that such maintainers should really consider > > >> being involved with the module community directly. > > > > > > Yes. As a consequence this is true. > > > > > > But I even do not know yet which projects are considered > > > to build Solaris spec files from. It is also not clear yet > > > for which toolchain the spec files are built for. Should > > > we make it work for the gcc or the SunPro tool chain? And > > > what is with 64 bit support? > > Here is nice info, how 64-bit support is doable in spec files: > http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/jds/spec-files/trunk/docs/multi-ISA.txt > > > From Sun's perspective Sun Studio is the better choice. It > > tends to build better and faster code for Solaris and > > OpenSolaris. It typically isn't much work to make modules > > work with Sun Studio. The typical problem is that many > > modules define GCC specific compiler flags (such as "-Wall") > > in the configure. However, it's pretty easy to fix these > > configure scripts to only do so if GCC is being used, which > > is more appropriate. > > Until you face C++ program which use 2% which are missing in sun studio STL > library ...
Stefan's work to integrate Apache's stdcxx should solve that problem. It's a fully compliant ISO C++ STL implementation if I'm not mistaken. See the recent ARC case on on psarc-ext. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
