On 2014-02-04 19:14, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Sure, the real world is very messy, and in practice one often ends up
writing tests that looks like "are we using gcc on macosx?" but the
goal is to have an overall portable codebase, one that has a chance of
building out of the box on a system you'v
On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 16:43 +1000, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On 1/02/2014 4:30 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> > In practice, every compiler defines preprocessor symbols that allow
> > conditional compilation based on compiler type. So there's not much value
> > in having configure define
On 2014-02-04 04:49, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I'll concede that when determining default compiler flags, those are
highly dependent on something like a "compiler family" and cannot be
done in the C/C++ sources themselves. But even then, for many of the
compiler flags there should be feature bas
Clang support on all platforms would be nice. Clang comes with full
cross-compilation ability, so it could be possible to set up a machine
(or machines) that produce builds for all platforms.
At the very least, the BSD ports should support clang, as FreeBSD now
uses clang by default.
On 01/31/14
On 2014-02-03 16:17, Volker Simonis wrote:
As always, you forget the Windows/IA64 which can be only cross-compiled:)
But OK, I'm pretty sure we won't support Java 9 on Windows/IA64 and I
hope Java 8 neither.
Theoretically you could also cross-compile Windows/AMD64 on a 32-bit
Windows box, but
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie
wrote:
>
> On 2014-02-03 10:36, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>
>> Hi Magnus,
>>
>> I think that supporting multiple compilers per platform will be really
>> helpful to make the code base more robust and portable.
>
>
> I have started working on this now
On 2014-02-03 10:36, Volker Simonis wrote:
Hi Magnus,
I think that supporting multiple compilers per platform will be really
helpful to make the code base more robust and portable.
I have started working on this now, and the result is really pretty. The
configure code ges much clearer, and n
Hi Magnus,
I think that supporting multiple compilers per platform will be really
helpful to make the code base more robust and portable.
How do you plan to address the fact that during he build process we
are actually already using two different compilers - the "build"
compiler which builds vari
I agree. The issue with different compilers are basically in the flags and how
the toolchain works. The source code should not be modified if it can be
avoided. On the other hands, compiler flags typically needs to be completely
written from scratch to support a new compiler.
/Magnus
> On 3 f
Hi Martin,
On 1/02/2014 4:30 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
In practice, every compiler defines preprocessor symbols that allow
conditional compilation based on compiler type. So there's not much value
in having configure define yet another "compiler family" variable, or at
least not useful within
On 01/31/2014 08:09 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I think it's generally wrong to use a "compiler type" just like it's
generally wrong to use a "OS type". Most code should be portable, and most
of the rest should use autoconf features "HAVE_FOO"
Getting openjdk to build with random compilers (e.g.
11 matches
Mail list logo
