On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:13 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
What do you think of my idea of dropping even GNU make for MSVC support
and just compiling everything with a batch file? One thing I note is
that MSVC's C compiler is C89 only; do we have dependencies on post-C89
On 02/04/14 12:08, Peter Bex wrote:
Hi Oleg,
This looks very useful indeed. Is the documentation for CMake better
nowadays? I seem to recall that was the main reason we dropped CMake,
because nobody besides one person understood it well enough to maintain
the build.
I don't know how it was
On 02/04/14 19:13, John Cowan wrote:
Peter Bex scripsit:
This looks very useful indeed. Is the documentation for CMake better
nowadays? I seem to recall that was the main reason we dropped CMake,
because nobody besides one person understood it well enough to maintain
the build.
That was
Peter Bex scripsit:
This looks very useful indeed. Is the documentation for CMake better
nowadays? I seem to recall that was the main reason we dropped CMake,
because nobody besides one person understood it well enough to maintain
the build.
That was part of it. In addition, CMake was
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 23:54:17 +0400 Oleg Kolosov bazur...@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/04/14 19:13, John Cowan wrote:
What do you think of my idea of dropping even GNU make for MSVC support
and just compiling everything with a batch file? One thing I note is
that MSVC's C compiler is C89 only; do
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Matt Welland estifo...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, no takers on my lame attempt at a financial bribe for making the next
chicken-iup so I took a stab at it myself. I've made pretty good progress,
no doubt thanks to all the great work done by the Chicken devs, so far
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 01:58:31PM -0200, Stephen Eilert wrote:
I think the issue is that Chicken for the moment does not seem to enjoy
much popularity on Windows. Having an installer could help mitigate some of
that, but I am not sure it's the only requirement. Perhaps being able to
compile
Hi,
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 13:58:31 -0200 Stephen Eilert spedr...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the issue is that Chicken for the moment does not seem to
enjoy much popularity on Windows. Having an installer could help
mitigate some of that, but I am not sure it's the only requirement.
I don't know.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 01:58:31PM -0200, Stephen Eilert wrote:
I think the issue is that Chicken for the moment does not seem to enjoy
much popularity on Windows. Having an installer could help mitigate some
of
that,
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 04:16:01PM -0200, Stephen Eilert wrote:
Oh, don't get me wrong, I have no issues with it as an user (or even doing
minor changes on *nix). However, understanding and translating those rules
to Microsoft's tools required more sanity than I had available (or less
sanity,
This might be useful:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Windows_cross_compiler
(not used it personally, just wanted to share the link)
martin
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Stephen Eilert spedr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Matt Welland estifo...@gmail.com
Martin DeMello scripsit:
This might be useful:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Windows_cross_compiler
(not used it personally, just wanted to share the link)
We already support that using cross-linux-mingw.
--
Man has no body distinct from his soul, John Cowan
for that
Peter Bex scripsit:
Have you considered digging into CHICKEN's historical build systems?
We used to have MSVC support before it fell into disrepair. I think
it worked with both Autofools and CMake (certainly the latter).
You might be able to resurrect some of that stuff, or at least take
a
Ok, no takers on my lame attempt at a financial bribe for making the next
chicken-iup so I took a stab at it myself. I've made pretty good progress,
no doubt thanks to all the great work done by the Chicken devs, so far
chicken 4.8.0.5 and iup have compiled and seem to run fine. I'm stuck at
14 matches
Mail list logo
