On Nov 1, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Bram Moolenaar b...@moolenaar.net wrote:
Felix Buenemann wrote:
Am 27.10.2013 um 16:02 schrieb Bram Moolenaar b...@moolenaar.net:
Björn wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Felix Buenemann wrote:
Am 19.10.2013 um 18:54 schrieb björn:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Felix Bünemann wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 9. Oktober 2013 20:25:49 UTC+2 schrieb björn:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Felix Bünemann wrote:
I'm pretty sure that AvailabilityMacros.h is available on all
versions of OS
X, because it's copyright header states 2001-20xx which matches the
OS X
10.0 release timeline. Is the os_mac.h code also targeting OS 9? In
that
case we should add a configure check.
Yes, pre-OS X should be supported. If there is a suitable #ifdef
check for that, then it should be possible to submit as a patch to
mainline Vim.
OK, I've updated the patch with a configure check:
https://gist.github.com/felixbuenemann/6150257
This looks good to me ... but should we perhaps be checking for
Availability.h instead as that is what is used on Mavericks (and
earlier OS X versions did not need explicit inclusion of
AvailabilityMacros.h)?
The macros used in the vim codebase are defined in AvailabilityMacros.h
not Availability.h.
Availability.h has similar but not the same macros, so using it would
require cluttering the code with even more ifdefs.
OK. Well, then I think this solves the problem of compiling on OS X
10.9 neatly and that it could be included in mainline Vim.
Bram, can you please consider this patch for inclusion. It should
apply cleanly (I just tried myself) and it automatically solves the
problem of us having to know exactly when this header was made
available. I've pasted it below for your convenience. Note that
Felix Bünemann wrote the patch, not me.
Thanks, I'll put it in the todo list.
How about the patch that Kazunobu Kuriyama sent on Friday?
Both patches should be fine. Mine uses a configure check to see if
AvailabilityMacros.h is available while Kazonubu Kuriyama used some
compiler defines to check if the header is needed, so his solution is
a bit more lightweight.
Just to be clear: So including one or the other works, but I should not
include both?
Though Björn Winckler has not replied to Bram’s email above yet, let me try to
clarify.
Felix Bünemann’s patch is for building VIM as a Carbon application, while mine
is for that as a plain UNIX application, I mean, the latter lets VIM depend
only on universal libc and ncurses (and additionally X11) stuff, not on any API
such as Carbon or Quartz peculiar to Mac.
That makes a big difference in keyboard response, but this is another story...
From practical and technical points of view, I think both of the patches won’t
conflict each other because his patch is mainly for os_mac.h while mine is
only for os_unix.c. No intersection, no conflict, though his solution uses
the configure script which affects the whole build procedure, thus making it
harder to evaluate possible unfavorable impact on the build.
Each of the patches will do for its own purpose.
Hopefully, this clarifies the issue.
Regards,
KK
--
--
You received this message from the vim_mac maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
vim_mac group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to vim_mac+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
