Supporting many compilers have a few problems, the three I can think of right now are, assembly sintax (intel x at&t), compiler extensions (gcc's computed goto can speed interpreters a lot) and c++ libraries nuanses (iff c++ is used).
On 10/24/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tanuj, > > Welcome! Thank you for your observations about compiler support. > I tried to write my code so as to be as independent of a particular > operating system and a particular compiler as possible, so I hope > that compiling for MSVC is a simple matter. As far as whether we > should move in that direction, I have stated an opinion that it would > provide easy access to a large base of developers who are familiar > with that compiler and its IDE. Others have stated concerns about > supporting multiple compilers being a potential source of logistical > problems. > > I'd like to ask The List for more opinions for weighing this issue. > > (1) Is MSVC support a good move? It is necessary? Is it a problem? > Is it prudent? > > (2) If we look into supporting several compilers more generally, > do we widen our horizons as to what platforms we can run Harmony on? > Do we create logistical problems by doing so? > > How about you folks from projects that have done this sort of thing > in the past? What do you say? > > My opinion-- Itis rather unusual for me that we should be here > because _my_ experience has typically been the inverse: Support > a single compiler on multiple platforms per architectural > requirements, not support multiple compilers on one platform. > This is why I would ask for the collective wisdom of The List. > > Tanuj, thanks for your interest in MSVC support. Let's see what > people say concerning strategic issues of supporting MSVC. > > > Dan Lydick > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Tanuj Mathur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Apache Harmony Bootstrap JVM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org> > > Date: 10/24/05 4:44:32 AM > > Subject: Re: Compilers and configuration tools > > > > Hi, > > > I'd like to help out with supporting the MSVC compiler on Windows. > > > I'm tied up with work this week, but can take a look at the task from > > > next Monday. > > > Geir, regarding your concerns about MSVC's commercial nature being a > > > barrier to entry, I am sure that wouldn't be a problem, as the MSVC > > > optimizing compiler is available as a free download from Microsoft's > > > website: > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3D272be09d= > > > -40bb-49fd-9cb0-4bfa122fa91b&displaylang=3Den > > > It is only the actual IDE that is commercial, with the Express > > > Editions estimated to cost $49 per copy (although the betas are free, > > > as Devanum pointed out). > > > It would probably be wise to focus most of the group's initial > > > efforts on maintaining GCC support, while a few interested people can > > > work on maintaining support for other compilers. I believe that the > > > feedback from the work done on adding compiler compatibility would be > > > of easier to incorporate if we start early,with the smaller/younger > > > code base, instead of waiting till later. > > > > > > - tanuj > > > > > > > > > On 10/22/05, Apache Harmony Bootstrap JVM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm with Geir on his comments, but evaluating MSVC > > > > I think is a good idea because there are so many > > > > folks who use it-- or is it? Rodrigo' comments about > > > > confusion with multiple compiler support make a > > > > compelling argument about going with _one_ > > > > compiler-- and look at the minor diffs we have > > > > already experienced! Rodrigo needs '__int64' on > > > > hit Linux box, and Robin is arguing with finding > > > > the correct 'thread.h' (apparently), and I had no > > > > problems. All of us are using GCC. What does > > > > this tell us? The less we deal with mechanical > > > > issues like compiler invocations, the more real > > > > work we get done. > > > > > > > > Bottom line: Should we just declare one compiler > > > > for now and branch out later, once we have all of > > > > our porting done? > > > > > > > > Next observation: There has been an offer of help > > > > with 'autotools' and some concern about that tool. > > > > I've seen GNU autoconf work (part of autotools?) > > > > nicely, and I'm interested in exploring this avenue > > > > further. > > > > > > > > Dan Lydick > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Oct 21, 2005 10:31 AM > > > > To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > Subject: Re: Small problems building under cygwin > > > > > > > > I believe Express versions are available for download - > > > > http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/visualc/default.aspx > > > > > > > > -- dims > > > > > > > > On 10/21/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I'd like to be sure that we don't have a barrier to entry by having > > > > > to go get commercial software to build the project - by this I mean > > > > > a MSVC requirement. I'm happy if windows users can use MSVC if they > > > > > want - i.e. if someone supports it - but it can't be the only option. > > > > > > > > > > geir > > > > > > > > > ...snip... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan Lydick > > > > > > > > >