please, just check them in... don't worry too much about the polish :)
geir
On Oct 25, 2005, at 11:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
From his posting below:
it will ensure that the project sticks to writing portable
code as far as possible.
- As for the logistical problems, I believe they will be
kept to a minimum if we develop keeping multiple compilers
in mind from the beginning itself.
Tanuj has several good points about multiple compiler
support. As to the numerous viewpoints being expressed,
I think we are probably in a bit of a "wait and see" mode
as everyone weighs in and as we decide what direction to
move in.
However, my main purpose in this posting is that several
people have expressed interest in using a standard build
tool such as GNU make or Ant or the like. I have written
up some small Makefiles for BootJVM that will do full and
incremental compilations and produce the same exact results
as the current /bin/sh build scripts. They were fairly
simple. One advantage is that they could be adapted to
handle multiple compilation environments when and if the
need arose without the complexity of modifying the current
scripts (the long-term price of short-term expediency).
This would ease the project more into maintainable position
before we all got used to using the current scripts.
(Sorry I didn't think to put the effort into this in
the first place, as I deemed getting the code base done
first the more important item.)
Would The List be interested in me replacing these simple
shell scripts (namely, '*/*.sh', being 'build.sh' and
'clean.sh' and 'common.sh') with these simple but _much_
smarter Makefiles (which run GNU make)? I'd be glad to
polish up these files and stick them out on SVN if folks
are interested. I am pretty sure that Rodrigo Kumpera and
Robin Garner would be happy if I did so... ;-)
Dan Lydick
[Original Message]
From: Tanuj Mathur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10/25/05 9:29:49 AM
Subject: Re: MSVC support, was: Compilers and configuration tools
The Boost project [http://www.boost.org] could probably serve as a
knowledge source on how difficult it is to support multiple compilers
for the same codebase.
For example, this document
http://www.boost.org/libs/config/config.htm
describes the configuration options and build process they use to
support the various compilers.
Some points I'd like to make:
- I believe multiple compiler support is desirous as we look to
support multiple platforms. First of all, it will ensure that the
project sticks to writing portable code as far as possible. Secondly,
it will give users an option to optimize the compiled code in the
best
way possible for their platform. For example, while GCC is an
excellent multiplatform compiler, at least on Windows it is certainly
not the best optimizing compiler available. and people would
appreciate it if the project provided them the option of using Intel
or MSVC to produce a better optimized JVM.
- As for the logistical problems, I believe they will be kept to a
minimum if we develop keeping multiple compilers in mind from the
beginning itself. Adding compiler support after the project has a
sizeable existing codebase would be quite painful.
As Boost shows, multi compiler support is doable with some effort.
Anyone out there with real life experiences they care to contribute?
- tanuj
...snip...
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
