harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: MSVC support, was: Compilers and configuration tools
Date Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:10:05 GMT
please, just check them in... don't worry too much about the polish :)

geir

On Oct 25, 2005, at 11:42 PM, 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...
>
>
>
>

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org



Mime
View raw message