Re: Problems with latest Cygwin make patch; builds OK but binary segfaults
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 11:47:22PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:51:21 -0400 >>From: Christopher Faylor >> >>So, again, I'd like to go slowly and carefully with this change. > >I agree, and said I would wait, but I can't wait indefinitely. >Eventually, if no one else cares to try these changes, they will go in. Personally, I think it sets a bad precedent to suggest that you'll apply a patch over the potential objections of the project lead for the affected system. However, you might as well go ahead and check in the patch. If someone notes a problem then presumably it can be reported back to this mailing list. But, at least, you won't have to suffer with an "indefinite" wait before the patch is checked in. And in the meantime, since this is free software, if I don't agree that this change should be in the Cygwin release, I can always back it out in the next release. cgf ___ Make-w32 mailing list Make-w32@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
Re: Problems with latest Cygwin make patch; builds OK but binary segfaults
> Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:51:21 -0400 > From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > So, again, I'd like to go slowly and carefully with this change. I agree, and said I would wait, but I can't wait indefinitely. Eventually, if no one else cares to try these changes, they will go in. If you want these changes to be well tested before the official sources have them, please consider using your authority on the Cygwin list to urge people to try the modified version. ___ Make-w32 mailing list Make-w32@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
Re: Problems with latest Cygwin make patch; builds OK but binary segfaults
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 07:27:13PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:44:56 -0400 >>From: "William A. Hoffman" >> >>OK, so we got one more person to try it. So that is three (including >>myself). >>I am thinking that no one else is going to try it. Is that enough? >>If not, I will send another email. > >I think another call is in order. However, this time I suggest to say >explicitly that _everyone_ who uses Make should try the patch, since >the patched version supports DOS file names BY DEFAULT, without any >optional switches. Therefore, not only those who need these file >names should care about the patch, but also all the rest, because we >want to be reasonably sure the drive letter support doesn't break any >situations where a colon is used with Posix file names. > >> It might also make sense to put a binary up for people to try. > >It's a good idea. I think both of the above are good ideas but I wanted to clarify that I think the reason for all of the outrage from my change was that I inadvertantly released a version of make which understood MS-DOS paths by default. I kick myself now for having done this but apparently people mistook this bug as an unbreakable contract and now expect Cygwin's make to operate in this fashion. So, yes, I'd still like to get more feedback about this. Maybe I've missed something but I think that only two of the three or four public complainers has tried this so far. I am going to be quite annoyed if these people crop up after the next release of make with more complaints. So, again, I'd like to go slowly and carefully with this change. cgf ___ Make-w32 mailing list Make-w32@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
RE: Don't see any output to stdout from commands
> Really? I use VS 6 sometimes, and the feature is still > there. What version dropped it? It was dropped in VS7 (.NET). The new paradigm is to use devenv.exe by passing it a solution file and a "configuration" (e.g. Debug or Release). Unfortunately I'm not familiar with actually using devenv; just contributing an answer to your question :) William Sheehan Builds Engineer / Network Administrator Open Interface North America > -Original Message- > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > .org] On Behalf Of Eli Zaretskii > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 9:28 AM > To: Krzysztof Nosek > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; make-w32@gnu.org > Subject: Re: Don't see any output to stdout from commands > > > > Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:34:46 +0200 > > From: Krzysztof Nosek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: make-w32@gnu.org > > > > of course calling cl.exe, link.exe and all the stuff > directly _is_ an > > option. But, sometimes, when you use such tool as Visual > Studio, you > > want to have projects (.vcproj) and solution files (.sln) > configured > > so that you can build-on-request during development from inside the > > VS's IDE (or your boss wants, or your fellow developer does, ...). > > > > So, these VS files contain (mostly) all information > concerning build > > issues of given solution. But it's only devenv who knows > how to deal > > with it. > > Okay, but then why invoke devenv from Make? > > > BTW, Previous versions of VS used to have feature of generating > > makefile (nmakish one) given solution file. But that feature > > disappeared many years ago... > > > > ___ > Make-w32 mailing list > Make-w32@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32 > ___ Make-w32 mailing list Make-w32@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
Re: Don't see any output to stdout from commands
> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:34:46 +0200 > From: Krzysztof Nosek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: make-w32@gnu.org > > of course calling cl.exe, link.exe and all the stuff directly _is_ an option. > But, sometimes, when you use such tool as Visual Studio, you want to have > projects (.vcproj) and solution files (.sln) configured so that you can > build-on-request during development from inside the VS's IDE (or your boss > wants, or your fellow developer does, ...). > > So, these VS files contain (mostly) all information concerning build issues of > given solution. But it's only devenv who knows how to deal with it. Okay, but then why invoke devenv from Make? > BTW, Previous versions of VS used to have feature of generating makefile > (nmakish one) given solution file. But that feature disappeared many years > ago... Really? I use VS 6 sometimes, and the feature is still there. What version dropped it? ___ Make-w32 mailing list Make-w32@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
Re: Problems with latest Cygwin make patch; builds OK but binary segfaults
> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:44:56 -0400 > From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > OK, so we got one more person to try it. So that is three (including > myself). > I am thinking that no one else is going to try it. Is that enough? > If not, I will send another email. I think another call is in order. However, this time I suggest to say explicitly that _everyone_ who uses Make should try the patch, since the patched version supports DOS file names BY DEFAULT, without any optional switches. Therefore, not only those who need these file names should care about the patch, but also all the rest, because we want to be reasonably sure the drive letter support doesn't break any situations where a colon is used with Posix file names. > It might also make sense to put a binary up for people to try. It's a good idea. ___ Make-w32 mailing list Make-w32@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
Re: Don't see any output to stdout from commands
> Why does one need to use devenv, anyway? Why not invoke cl.exe > directly? Eli, of course calling cl.exe, link.exe and all the stuff directly _is_ an option. But, sometimes, when you use such tool as Visual Studio, you want to have projects (.vcproj) and solution files (.sln) configured so that you can build-on-request during development from inside the VS's IDE (or your boss wants, or your fellow developer does, ...). So, these VS files contain (mostly) all information concerning build issues of given solution. But it's only devenv who knows how to deal with it. Writing the build process from the scratch means repeating everything once more and equals redundancy for request. Or it means to resign from VS IDE and its tools, which globally _might_ be in favour of the whole process, but would be tough decision in any larger team or company. BTW, Previous versions of VS used to have feature of generating makefile (nmakish one) given solution file. But that feature disappeared many years ago... Nick, I didn't mean mock at anybody using VS; my makefiles got to invoke devenv many times every single day (gathering output via named pipes and so on...) and I see all misery of it far too well. Perhaps somebody who reads this list knows better way of batch building projects, given Microsoft Visual Studio solution/project files; please drop us a line. Regards, Chriss ___ Make-w32 mailing list Make-w32@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
Re: Problems with latest Cygwin make patch; builds OK but binary segfaults
At 11:11 PM 9/5/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:37:19 -0400 >> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> I have sent out a new message, and cross posted to this list so all can >> see it. > >Thanks. Let's wait for a couple more weeks. OK, so we got one more person to try it. So that is three (including myself). I am thinking that no one else is going to try it. Is that enough? If not, I will send another email.It might also make sense to put a binary up for people to try. -Bill ___ Make-w32 mailing list Make-w32@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
