Bill Hoffman wrote:
I have it working now. Strange -D did not work for me.
It did not complain, but it does not work. It seems to
like -d instead. Anyway, I have cmake working with wcl386,
and wmake. I now trying to build cmake itself with wcl386,
but I should be able to put this stuff into
1. QNX4 .. it's a robust RTOS
2. http://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/ ..?
3. http://www.fox-toolkit.org .. I like it!
4. http://www.fltk.org/ .. works with Chicken, at least on Linux
There is some tendency in cross-platform projects to be compiler agnostic..
it depends upon the project des
Sergey Khorev wrote:
Hello Bob McIsaac
BM> I tried MinGw and found it wasn't "the simplest thing that could
BM> possibly work" (as Ward Cunningham might say). That is the fate
BM> of Unix tools on the Windows platform... compromises, work arounds,
BM> and special cases are inevitable resultin
felix winkelmann wrote:
On 1/11/06, Brandon J. Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Which happens, but that's about using the Common Language
Runtime, not generating native code. I'm a 3D game developer, I want
native code.
Isn't the CLR code JIT-compiled? (just asking).
Yeah, bu
On 1/11/06, Brandon J. Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which happens, but that's about using the Common Language
> Runtime, not generating native code. I'm a 3D game developer, I want
> native code.
Isn't the CLR code JIT-compiled? (just asking).
>
> I have never encountered Watcom on m
Bob McIsaac wrote:
I tried MinGw and found it wasn't "the simplest thing that could
possibly work" (as Ward Cunningham might say). That is the fate
of Unix tools on the Windows platform... compromises, work arounds,
and special cases are inevitable resulting in some obfuscation.
Yes... it's a
BJV> The MinGW guys are also working on proper packaging. Several months ago
BJV> it was terribly bugged, however. I made noise about it, and people
BJV> concluded that the alpha quality packaging mechanism was harming
This new packaging was 100% crap :)
Hello Bob McIsaac
BM> I tried MinGw and found it wasn't "the simplest thing that could
BM> possibly work" (as Ward Cunningham might say). That is the fate
BM> of Unix tools on the Windows platform... compromises, work arounds,
BM> and special cases are inevitable resulting in some obfuscation.
B
Watcom is literal minded about import libraries.. The import library
should
only show what is exported by the DLL. Therefore, the "chicken.exe"
target
should link the import library plus another library containing objects
that
were compiled with import declarations. Trying to use Makefile.vc
I tried MinGw and found it wasn't "the simplest thing that could
possibly work" (as Ward Cunningham might say). That is the fate
of Unix tools on the Windows platform... compromises, work arounds,
and special cases are inevitable resulting in some obfuscation.
On the other hand, I briefly tried
Sergey Khorev wrote:
BM> My main goal is to use Scheme on Linux and win32 without any fuss. I
BM> don't have a Watcom agenda.. it just appears to be best maintained of
BM> the free win32 compilers. And my options are limited because I have win98.
BTW MinGW is working as perfect as normal GCC.
felix winkelmann wrote:
On 1/10/06, Sergey Khorev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok. It seems that Brandon and me can cover these tasks.
I'll take a look what can be done for Open Watcom. If someone wants to use it,
why
not? Ppersonally I can't find sufficiently good reason to migrate to Watcom
On 1/10/06, Sergey Khorev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ok. It seems that Brandon and me can cover these tasks.
> I'll take a look what can be done for Open Watcom. If someone wants to use
> it, why
> not? Ppersonally I can't find sufficiently good reason to migrate to Watcom
> besides of
> prob
fw> I can apply patches myself, and fix the most glaring bugs. But where I
really
fw> need help is with maintaining build issues. That is, testing of mingw,
fw> cygwin and msvc builds. I would also like to have someone to look into
fw> compiling Chicken with Open Watcom.
fw> And providing win32 bi
BM> My main goal is to use Scheme on Linux and win32 without any fuss. I
BM> don't have a Watcom agenda.. it just appears to be best maintained of
BM> the free win32 compilers. And my options are limited because I have win98.
BTW MinGW is working as perfect as normal GCC.
BM> PS: has anyone tr
BJV> Actually I need to create a generic INSTALL readme for
BJV> CMake itself, I just haven't gotten to it yet.
Actually the lack of INSTALL.CMake is the main show-stopper for me on CMake
way. When I tried it I changed some settings through CMake interface and broke
the build :) Some docs about
Bob McIsaac wrote:
My main goal is to use Scheme on Linux and win32 without any fuss. I
don't have a Watcom agenda.. it just appears to be best maintained of
the free win32 compilers.
That point, I do not understand or agree with. Cygwin is clearly the
best maintained free compiler, used
Hi:
Brandon has been advocating the use of Cmake, I guess to minimize
cross-platform build complexity. I took a quick look at the Cmake site
and agree that the idea has merit. It appears to use XML to describe
the pattern rules used by various compilers. Correct me if I am mistaken.
My main go
felix winkelmann wrote:
On 1/8/06, Sergey Khorev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to (excluding CMake stuff), but I'm very confused by your
words about lots of work :)
Support for Windows looks mature enough to not require daily hacking.
Can you please explain what are those big problems?
On 1/8/06, Brandon J. Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> Yes, I would like to define and pipeline the responsibilities in
> conjunction with whomever else wants to take them on. As I said before,
> I'm not interested in doing patches. Right now my skills and
> programming toolchain are st
felix winkelmann wrote:
On 1/8/06, Brandon J. Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, I would like to define and pipeline the responsibilities in
conjunction with whomever else wants to take them on. As I said before,
I'm not interested in doing patches. Right now my skills and
programmi
On 1/8/06, Sergey Khorev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to (excluding CMake stuff), but I'm very confused by your
> words about lots of work :)
> Support for Windows looks mature enough to not require daily hacking.
> Can you please explain what are those big problems?
>
> Also what will be
Bob McIsaac wrote:
IMO, maintaining a universal build tool that works for both windows
and unix
is too complicated given the broken-minded idioms found on the windows
platform.Mingw and Cygwin only extend this complexity. So it is
better
to have a separate windows build system.
I am t
Sergey Khorev wrote:
I'd like to (excluding CMake stuff), but I'm very confused by your
words about lots of work :)
Support for Windows looks mature enough to not require daily hacking.
Can you please explain what are those big problems?
Also what will be modus operandi? E.g. shall maintainer j
Sergey Khorev wrote:
I'd like to (excluding CMake stuff), but I'm very confused by your
words about lots of work :)
Support for Windows looks mature enough to not require daily hacking.
Can you please explain what are those big problems?
Also what will be modus operandi? E.g. shall maintainer j
I'd like to (excluding CMake stuff), but I'm very confused by your
words about lots of work :)
Support for Windows looks mature enough to not require daily hacking.
Can you please explain what are those big problems?
Also what will be modus operandi? E.g. shall maintainer just fish out
Windows-spe
felix winkelmann wrote:
Fellow Schemers and Chicken users:
It turns out that I'm not able to cope with maintaining the Windows
build of Chicken any longer. Since I'm working in a Linux-based
company and since I don't have any suitable platform for testing
Windows things myself,
But clearly thi
Fellow Schemers and Chicken users:
It turns out that I'm not able to cope with maintaining the Windows
build of Chicken any longer. Since I'm working in a Linux-based
company and since I don't have any suitable platform for testing
Windows things myself, I feel that I can't decently keep up with
t
28 matches
Mail list logo
