harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ivan Zvolsky" <i.zvol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] Harmony enabling at Windows / x86_64
Date Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:16:53 GMT
On 2/19/07, Gregory Shimansky <gshimansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ivan Zvolsky wrote:
> > I have also put my efforts with drlvm building to HARMONY-3196. The
> patch
> > makes drlvm buildable on windows/em64t (and shouldn't break building on
> > other platforms).
> >
> > It still has some things to do, which I described in subtasks for
> > HARMONY-3196.
>
> I looked at the patches and I have a question. You've added amd64
> architecture in some select statements in the build along with em64t
> flag. I thought that from the build point they are equivalent, and
> build.arch property is defined in build.xml for all kinds of arch
> (x86_64, em64t, amd64) to be equal to "em64t". Why add another flag in
> build files?


I can't remember why I added this. But I just tried to modify all selects
like "em64t,amd64" to simply "em64t" and the build worked fine. What is the
best option to do:
1) should I replace drlvm_build_system.patch with newer version?
2) or add newer version without removing the old one?
3) or prepare a patch for drlvm_build_system.patch file?

> On 2/16/07, Ivan Zvolsky <i.zvolsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Some time ago, I found out that Harmony is not buildable on Windows /
> >> x86_64 (EM64T).
> >> I tried to reanimate at least the build which has required to update
> both
> >> classlib and drlvm build files, create stubs for some functions, etc.
> >>
> >> I've put my results (for now only classlib part) to HARMONY-3188.
> >> Could someone take a look? The comments are welcome.
> >>
> >> In particular, Geir might want to look at the first comment in the
> >> description :)
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ivan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Gregory
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message