harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: MSVC support, was: Compilers and configuration tools
Date Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:46:50 GMT
+1 to check them in :)

-- dims

On 10/25/05, bootjvm@earthlink.net <bootjvm@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> From his posting below:
>
> >  it will ensure that the project sticks to writing portable
> >  code as far as possible.
>
> >   - As for the logistical problems, I believe they will be
> >  kept to a minimum if we develop keeping multiple compilers
> >  in mind from the beginning itself.
>
> Tanuj has several good points about multiple compiler
> support.  As to the numerous viewpoints being expressed,
> I think we are probably in a bit of a "wait and see" mode
> as everyone weighs in and as we decide what direction to
> move in.
>
> However, my main purpose in this posting is that several
> people have expressed interest in using a standard build
> tool such as GNU make or Ant or the like.  I have written
> up some small Makefiles for BootJVM that will do full and
> incremental compilations and produce the same exact results
> as the current /bin/sh build scripts.  They were fairly
> simple.  One advantage is that they could be adapted to
> handle multiple compilation environments when and if the
> need arose without the complexity of modifying the current
> scripts  (the long-term price of short-term expediency).
> This would ease the project more into maintainable position
> before we all got used to using the current scripts.
> (Sorry I didn't think to put the effort into this in
> the first place, as I deemed getting the code base done
> first the more important item.)
>
> Would The List be interested in me replacing these simple
> shell scripts (namely, '*/*.sh', being 'build.sh' and
> 'clean.sh' and 'common.sh') with these simple but _much_
> smarter Makefiles (which run GNU make)?  I'd be glad to
> polish up these files and stick them out on SVN if folks
> are interested.  I am pretty sure that Rodrigo Kumpera and
> Robin Garner would be happy if I did so...  ;-)
>
>
> Dan Lydick
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Tanuj Mathur <tanujmathur@gmail.com>
> > To: <bootjvm@earthlink.net>
> > Date: 10/25/05 9:29:49 AM
> > Subject: Re: MSVC support, was: Compilers and configuration tools
> >
> > The Boost project [http://www.boost.org] could probably serve as a
> > knowledge source on how difficult it is to support multiple compilers
> > for the same codebase.
> > For example, this document
> >    http://www.boost.org/libs/config/config.htm
> > describes the configuration options and build process they use to
> > support the various compilers.
> > Some points I'd like to make:
> >   -  I believe multiple compiler support is desirous as we look to
> > support multiple platforms. First of all, it will ensure that the
> > project sticks to writing portable code as far as possible. Secondly,
> > it will give users an option to optimize the compiled code in the best
> > way possible for their platform. For example, while GCC is an
> > excellent multiplatform compiler, at least on Windows it is certainly
> > not the best optimizing compiler available. and people would
> > appreciate it if the project provided them the option of using Intel
> > or MSVC to produce a better optimized JVM.
> >   - As for the logistical problems, I believe they will be kept to a
> > minimum if we develop keeping multiple compilers in mind from the
> > beginning itself. Adding compiler support after the project has a
> > sizeable existing codebase would be quite painful.
> >
> > As Boost shows, multi compiler support is doable with some effort.
> > Anyone out there with real life experiences they care to contribute?
> >
> > - tanuj
> >
> ...snip...
>
>
>
>


--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/

Mime
View raw message