On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
> #if defined(OS_LINUX) || defined(OS_FREEBSD)
> and this is ugly.
It doesn't deeply worry me, except when NetBSD, OpenBSD come along.
Could you use OS_BSD instead? I know that some may assume that OS X
would be included, but I don't have a bett
we could go with like _nix or something, and consider OSX to not be
unix (which is kinda isn't). Really, in theory, we should have more
granular ifdefs ./configure style, but that is also really a pain in
my opinion.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Adam Langley wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009
Rad that you're doing this!
I think that we shouldn't have any linux-specific directories except
for one or two cases where it's *really* Linux-specific (like crash
dumping or ). So the same should be true for you.
It seems the configurations we'll see most frequently in code are:
1) POSIX (bas
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Evan Martin wrote:
>
> Rad that you're doing this!
>
> I think that we shouldn't have any linux-specific directories except
> for one or two cases where it's *really* Linux-specific (like crash
> dumping or ). So the same should be true for you.
>
> It seems the
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Evan Martin wrote:
>>
>> Rad that you're doing this!
>>
>> I think that we shouldn't have any linux-specific directories except
>> for one or two cases where it's *really* Linux-specific (like crash
>> dumping
Ben Laurie wrote:
> The observation is that many places that are currently:
> #if defined(OS_LINUX)
> are going to become:
> #if defined(OS_LINUX) || defined(OS_FREEBSD)
> and this is ugly.
I think that these would generally be proper as defined(OS_POSIX) &&
!defined(OS_MACOSX). If people think
In all the cases so far, testing for OS_MACOSX first and then OS_POSIX
seems sufficient. I really don't like single flags that express
combinations of stuff.
--Amanda
On Wednesday, August 19, 2009, Mark Mentovai wrote:
>
> Ben Laurie wrote:
>> The observation is that many places that are curre
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Evan Martin wrote:
> It seems the configurations we'll see most frequently in code are:
> 1) POSIX (basically, non-Windows -- we have this already)
> 2) POSIX minus Mac (since Mac has the most extensions, especially at
> the GUI layer)
> 3) POSIX minus Linux (aka e
I kinda feel like this is one of those things you can try hard to
premeditate, but in the end you'll just have to deal with it being
ugly for a while and hope it eventually converges to something better.
Sort of a non-answer, but I'd be happy to see this running on a BSD
first, and then we can ar
True enough. And since Ben has started the port, he does get to
decide what color the shed gets painted.
--Amanda
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Dean McNamee wrote:
> I kinda feel like this is one of those things you can try hard to
> premeditate, but in the end you'll just have to deal with
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Dean McNamee wrote:
>
> I kinda feel like this is one of those things you can try hard to
> premeditate, but in the end you'll just have to deal with it being
> ugly for a while and hope it eventually converges to something better.
The changes in the bulk of the C
I don't know much about the technical details at play here, but a
couple of high level notes:
- I am sympathetic to concerns around codebase cleanliness. Many
people (like Brett) have spent very many months maintaining and
improving the hygiene of Chrome code. Sometimes it feels like an
uphill ba
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Brett Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Dean McNamee wrote:
>>
>> I kinda feel like this is one of those things you can try hard to
>> premeditate, but in the end you'll just have to deal with it being
>> ugly for a while and hope it eventually conve
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Brett Wilson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Brett Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Dean McNamee wrote:
> >>
> >> I kinda feel like this is one of those things you can try hard to
> >> premeditate, but in the end you'll just have to
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Dean McNamee wrote:
> I kinda feel like this is one of those things you can try hard to
> premeditate, but in the end you'll just have to deal with it being
> ugly for a while and hope it eventually converges to something better.
> Sort of a non-answer, but I'd be
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Ben Goodger (Google) wrote:
> I don't know much about the technical details at play here, but a
> couple of high level notes:
>
> - I am sympathetic to concerns around codebase cleanliness. Many
> people (like Brett) have spent very many months maintaining and
> im
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel wrote:
> I don't mind as long it's documented on dev.chromium.org.
> Ben, ping me if you want to setup a freebsd slave on fyi. As long as you
> want to babysit it. :)
Cool - I haven't got that far yet, but when it builds, I'll be in
touch (may b
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Brett Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Brett Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Dean McNamee wrote:
>>>
>>> I kinda feel like this is one of those things you can try hard to
>>> premeditate, but in the end you'll just have to deal wit
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
> I'd be happy to do that. When I do, there's something that's already
> puzzling me, and that's OS_POSIX.
>
> I don't have a copy of the POSIX standard, at least not a recent one,
> so its hard to know what is or isn't POSIX, and I imagine I am n
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
> I'd be happy to do that. When I do, there's something that's already
> puzzling me, and that's OS_POSIX.
>
> I don't have a copy of the POSIX standard, at least not a recent one,
> so its hard to know what is or isn't POSIX, and I imagine I am n
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Evan Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
>> I'd be happy to do that. When I do, there's something that's already
>> puzzling me, and that's OS_POSIX.
>>
>> I don't have a copy of the POSIX standard, at least not a recent one,
>> so it
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Evan Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Evan Martin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
I'd be happy to do that. When I do, there's something that's already
puz
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Evan Martin wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
>>> I'd be happy to do that. When I do, there's something that's already
>>> puzzling me, and that's OS_POSIX.
>>>
>>> I don't have a copy
23 matches
Mail list logo
