+1 for makefiles
On 10/26/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > please, just check them in... don't worry too much about the polish :) > > geir > > On Oct 25, 2005, at 11:42 PM, [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... > > > > > > > > > > -- > Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
