I kinda feel like this is one of those things you can try hard to premeditate, but in the end you'll just have to deal with it being ugly for a while and hope it eventually converges to something better. Sort of a non-answer, but I'd be happy to see this running on a BSD first, and then we can argue about the patch.
I just went through some work trying to build it on OpenBSD (promised a friend I'd try). There are a lot of little things we need to do before we even have this debated. Pretty much everything in third_party (icu, libevent), gmock, etc. Some of these will probably require changes upstream. On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Amanda Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Evan Martin<[email protected]> wrote: >> It seems the configurations we'll see most frequently in code are: >> 1) POSIX (basically, non-Windows -- we have this already) >> 2) POSIX minus Mac (since Mac has the most extensions, especially at >> the GUI layer) >> 3) POSIX minus Linux (aka everything BSD-derived, more or less) >> >> Dean proposes a define for #2, agl proposes a define for #3. I think >> it'd be nice to keep the defines down if possible. > > I strongly dislike a #define for #2. I think that having defines for > particular combinations of platforms is the wrong way to denote the > absence or presence of a particular API or feature. Rather, I would > prefer to leave the platform flags as general as possible, and then > have features for particular differences within a major platform (this > also parallels how webkit's feature controls work, how we're denoting > usage of GTK, etc.). > > So, for example, MacOS X might be OS_POSIX and USES_MACH_THREADS or > something. OS_POSIX_BUT_NOT_MAC seems like the wrong direction. > > --Amanda > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
