Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
Hi Gerrit, Hi Peter,
I looked at the patches to screen what's really needed.
* SableVM
IIUC the foreign was used only because of libffi being 'included' into
sources which, as discussed earlier, we can't accept. BTW. Some claim
(I have not verified it) that you need
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 11:57, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
1.
I have a stripped down standalone libffi package with a shared libffi
now. This version is based on the sources from the cygwin release of
gcc-3.3.3. You can take this package and maintain it, that means update
it when Cygwin GCC is
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
Ready compiled SableVM binary and source package:
http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/cygwin-1.5/sablevm/
The source package includes also the patch and uses a statically libffi,
so it doesn't need a FFI DLL. Could you verify that this SableVM works
as expected, please?
Hi Gerrit, Hi Peter,
I looked at the patches to screen what's really needed.
* SableVM
IIUC the foreign was used only because of libffi being 'included' into
sources which, as discussed earlier, we can't accept. BTW. Some claim
(I have not verified it) that you need to set this flag in the
== Grzegorz B Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They're also considering change of the license to a more
restrictive one.
False. Where did you hear this?
Tom
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 15:25, Peter Lovell wrote:
Speaking only for myself, I believe that option (2) would be the
appropriate one. It might be nice to include it also back to gcc but I
suspect that sablevm developers might prefer to not have that
dependency.
As for including libffi in
Hi Peter,
coming back to this now.
I'm also willing to help port and maintain.
Fine. I have to offer two possible scenarios.
1.
I have a stripped down standalone libffi package with a shared libffi
now. This version is based on the sources from the cygwin release of
gcc-3.3.3. You can take
Hi Gerrit,
many thanks for this. Great !
Speaking only for myself, I believe that option (2) would be the
appropriate one. It might be nice to include it also back to gcc but I
suspect that sablevm developers might prefer to not have that
dependency.
I'll fetch your patches and test and let
On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 18:45, Peter Lovell wrote:
I was not able to check out Mélanie's sandbox in the way you suggested
($ svn co svn+ssh://svn.sablevm.org/public/developers/mlord
sablevm-mlord) probably because I don't have an ssh account. However
I was able to fetch
Hi Grzegorz,
On Oct 8, 2004, at 3:18 AM, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 18:45, Peter Lovell wrote:
I was not able to check out Mélanie's sandbox in the way you suggested
($ svn co svn+ssh://svn.sablevm.org/public/developers/mlord
sablevm-mlord) probably because I don't have an
Grzegorz wrote:
On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 18:45, Peter Lovell wrote:
I was not able to check out Mélanie's sandbox in the way you suggested
($ svn co svn+ssh://svn.sablevm.org/public/developers/mlord
sablevm-mlord) probably because I don't have an ssh account. However
I was able to fetch
Hi Gerrit,
On Oct 8, 2004, at 8:59 AM, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Grzegorz wrote:
On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 18:45, Peter Lovell wrote:
I was not able to check out Mélanie's sandbox in the way you
suggested
($ svn co svn+ssh://svn.sablevm.org/public/developers/mlord
sablevm-mlord) probably because I don't
12 matches
Mail list logo
