+1 to check them in :) -- dims
On 10/25/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All, > > From his posting below: > > > it will ensure that the project sticks to writing portable > > code as far as possible. > > > - As for the logistical problems, I believe they will be > > kept to a minimum if we develop keeping multiple compilers > > in mind from the beginning itself. > > Tanuj has several good points about multiple compiler > support. As to the numerous viewpoints being expressed, > I think we are probably in a bit of a "wait and see" mode > as everyone weighs in and as we decide what direction to > move in. > > However, my main purpose in this posting is that several > people have expressed interest in using a standard build > tool such as GNU make or Ant or the like. I have written > up some small Makefiles for BootJVM that will do full and > incremental compilations and produce the same exact results > as the current /bin/sh build scripts. They were fairly > simple. One advantage is that they could be adapted to > handle multiple compilation environments when and if the > need arose without the complexity of modifying the current > scripts (the long-term price of short-term expediency). > This would ease the project more into maintainable position > before we all got used to using the current scripts. > (Sorry I didn't think to put the effort into this in > the first place, as I deemed getting the code base done > first the more important item.) > > Would The List be interested in me replacing these simple > shell scripts (namely, '*/*.sh', being 'build.sh' and > 'clean.sh' and 'common.sh') with these simple but _much_ > smarter Makefiles (which run GNU make)? I'd be glad to > polish up these files and stick them out on SVN if folks > are interested. I am pretty sure that Rodrigo Kumpera and > Robin Garner would be happy if I did so... ;-) > > > Dan Lydick > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Tanuj Mathur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 10/25/05 9:29:49 AM > > Subject: Re: MSVC support, was: Compilers and configuration tools > > > > The Boost project [http://www.boost.org] could probably serve as a > > knowledge source on how difficult it is to support multiple compilers > > for the same codebase. > > For example, this document > > http://www.boost.org/libs/config/config.htm > > describes the configuration options and build process they use to > > support the various compilers. > > Some points I'd like to make: > > - I believe multiple compiler support is desirous as we look to > > support multiple platforms. First of all, it will ensure that the > > project sticks to writing portable code as far as possible. Secondly, > > it will give users an option to optimize the compiled code in the best > > way possible for their platform. For example, while GCC is an > > excellent multiplatform compiler, at least on Windows it is certainly > > not the best optimizing compiler available. and people would > > appreciate it if the project provided them the option of using Intel > > or MSVC to produce a better optimized JVM. > > - As for the logistical problems, I believe they will be kept to a > > minimum if we develop keeping multiple compilers in mind from the > > beginning itself. Adding compiler support after the project has a > > sizeable existing codebase would be quite painful. > > > > As Boost shows, multi compiler support is doable with some effort. > > Anyone out there with real life experiences they care to contribute? > > > > - tanuj > > > ...snip... > > > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
