Gregory Shimansky wrote: > On Thursday 06 July 2006 20:20 Tim Ellison wrote: >> Gregory Shimansky wrote: >>> On Thursday 06 July 2006 03:46 Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: >>>> In HARMONY-681, I applied the patch to build DRLVM as debug by default, >>>> but 'rejected' the classlib patch, as it's not overridable as the DRLVM >>>> one is. >>>> >>>> I think that we'd like to be able to set a flag for release build, >>>> rather than have to rummage about in each makefile and include. >>>> >>>> Yea? Nea? >>> +1 for release flag when it is needed >>> >>> I support this as I also think that current classlib build system is >>> rather primitive > > Btw no offense intended I meant only native part of the build system. Java > part is fine to me. > > I think I didn't understand the original question well enough. Sure I think > it > would be good to have more than one mode to build native sources. > >> Don't mistake being simple with being primitive <g>. It will need to >> grow as we expand the amount of platform-dependent code, but I suggest >> we try to keep things as simple as possible. >> >>> which is easy to alter by developers locally but isn't really meant >>> to be a product build system. >> What do you mean? > > (I'll try to answer both your and Geir's question here) > > The build system for native code is really simple and has most things like > even debug on/off mode hardcoded in the flags. It has just one fixed set of > flags which don't include debug by default. If any change is required, > makefiles have to be changed and I am sure I am not alone who altered them > locally to produce debug version. I think we'll come to some sort of > configure script but maybe not, it should be discussed separately.
Right - the argument we're making is that we don't want to have the same problem in reverse via the debug settings. We want to just do this right and have a settable property somewhere, and yes, debug as default is fine. > > I agree that we need to improve it and add more flexible control over what it > can produce, debug/release, different architectures, optimizations, maybe > compilers. But discussing on the direction which this process should take > (e.g. we may agree to add a configure script) may take a long time while a > simple change to enable debugging by default doesn't since it seems most of > the people agree that it is right thing to do. But we don't. we agree it's a good default, but a little extra work will just do it via a user-specified property. Patch welcome :) geir --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
