Am Mittwoch, 4. August 2004 18:15 schrieb Ingo Pr�tel: > > I'm not a friend of this one-OS-one-dir approach. I would more > > test for features with autoconf and use the features if present. > > This makes it more easy to port to another arch. When the feature > > is available there, use it. If not, add some code to make it > > work. > > The advantage of having one-OS-one-dir is that one knows which > files are involved. Otherwise one needs the latest autoconf run to > determine all the variables to figure out what parts of the code > actually runs. Or do I have it wrong?
The advantages of one-dir-fits-all was described in other mails from me already. No, you are don't wrong. But the #ifdefs are normally really clear from the code to understand. More see below. > > The TARGET api is really not intutive and the very long MACRO > > names makes it even harder to understand. Sometimes the names > > just badly choosed. The "Linux" layer is full of bugs. And I > > suppose your other ports are too because they are copies of the > > "Linux" layer. Some bugs are fixed in the classpath version of > > "Linux". I wonder how many of them were ported to you other > > ports. When an autoconf approach you wouldnt even think about > > this. I know that with the autoconf approach the patches need a > > closed review and more testing before they go in but IMO this is > > much better then duplicatin bugs over several trees. > > I actually didn't consider long names a problem since there is word > completion every where. If the names are badly chosen the can be > changed. They actually follow a convention:(Quote form the > readme.txt) > The naming pattern for native macros is like follows: > > TARGET_NATIVE_<module name>_<macro name> > > where <module name> is a name of a module, e. g. FILE; <macro > name> is the name of the specific native macro, e. g. OPEN_READ. Whoever invented this convention must have been drunk or so. I dont like like the ultra-long names because they are hard to type (that's no reason as you said yourself). I don't like them because they make the code more unreasable. When I open javanet.c in an editor I get blind because I only see "TARGET_NATIVE" all over the place. > I guess the TARGET_NATIVE_ part could be shortend. Or better removed. This prefix is really not needed. > > I was pretty surprised when ypu wrote yesterday, that you have > > more "ports" then just "Linux". Why don't you submitted them ? I > > think it would be a very good idea to support as much OSes > > upstream as possible, even Plan9 and QNX and ... > > I will see what I can put in. Though I don't think we have Plan9 > (At least I don't know it). But we have an RTEMS port. That would be great. Thanks, Michael _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
