On Oct 24, 2005, at 5:44 AM, Tanuj Mathur wrote:
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.
Excellent.
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=272be09d-40bb-49fd-9cb0-4bfa122fa91b&displaylang=en
That's great. I have no problem with multiple supported compilers,
btw. We should actually strive for portable types rather than
compiler extensions (which is what got us down this path in the first
place...)
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).
Right - but still - we can't force people to go buy Express.
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.
Yep! +1 from me.
geir
- 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
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
