harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodrigo Kumpera <kump...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Small problems building under cygwin
Date Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:33:19 GMT

If autotools have really evolved since last time I checked, start of
2005, then are a really good alternative. They can do some really good
magic with platform incompatibility issues.

My experience with developing with then is really depressing, I need
to have a dozen versions of autoconf instaled because all of then are
bloody incompatible and every project require an unique version.
Debuging autoconf script are really hard (maybe I'm missing
something). Every time I had to generate Makefile.in or Makefile I had
a long session of fixing small problems and googleing for solutions.
Maybe that's because I do suck when  using and developing with
autotools and I hope so.

Anyway, configure scripts are really sweet... when they work and don't
screw up too badly.

On 10/21/05, Dalibor Topic <robilad@kaffe.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 01:08:34PM -0200, Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
> > Dan,
> >
> > To generate a binary that doesn't depend on cygwin shared lib, for
> > that I use the following combination of flags "-mno-cygwin
> > -Wl,--add-stdcall-alias", the first one is pretty obvious, the second
> > is result of google'ing for a working solution, as I could not make it
> > work without this flag.
> Is there something that speaks against using autotools for all that?
> I've written autotools setups that work with gcc, MSVC, etc, across
> CygWin, OS X, various Unix variants, GNU/Linux, etc, and found the
> underlying tools to have evolved nicely for that in the last few years,
> offer some pretty neat features (cross-compiling for windows from
> GNU/Linux for example), and most importantly, take care of the whole
> platform specific linker flag zoo accross all sorts of operating system
> and toolchain combinations.
> cheers,
> dalibor topic

View raw message