harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregory Shimansky <gshiman...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] Harmony enabling at Windows / x86_64
Date Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:34:33 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2007, at 7:24 AM, Gregory Shimansky wrote:
>> Ivan Zvolsky wrote:
>>> 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?
>> I'll take care about it myself. I'll remove all amd64 flags. 
>> Converting em64t to x86_64 may be done later separately from enabling 
>> x86_64 windows.
> If you are going to be doing it anyway, why not convert to "x86_64"?

I'll do it but I don't want to break things right now not to break 
Ivan's patches. Also I would like to change no more than needed at a time.


View raw message