Re: [protobuf] Re: Contribution: C++Builder Compiling

[Pherl Liu]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Scott Saad  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Thank you for adding a link!
>
> We'd like to accept patches. However, we don't have enough engineering
>> resources to maintain another platform. Supporting a different platform
>> requires much testing work in the release process (also user support). I'd
>> suggest to keep the C++ builder branch. You can always merge when a new
>> version of protobuf is released.
>>
>
> I can completely understand not wanting to support another platform and am
> happy to maintain the C++Builder branch. At the same time, if I were
> wanting to submit a patch, how do I go about that? Through this group?
>

Thanks for the understanding. You can create an issue on the project page(
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/list) and put the diffs as
attachments.


>
> Kind regards,
> Scott
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Protocol Buffers" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/8X7Wsx6yns4J.
>
> To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.

Re: [protobuf] Re: Contribution: C++Builder Compiling

[Scott Saad]

Hello,
 
Thank you for adding a link! 

We'd like to accept patches. However, we don't have enough engineering 
> resources to maintain another platform. Supporting a different platform 
> requires much testing work in the release process (also user support). I'd 
> suggest to keep the C++ builder branch. You can always merge when a new 
> version of protobuf is released.
>

I can completely understand not wanting to support another platform and am 
happy to maintain the C++Builder branch. At the same time, if I were 
wanting to submit a patch, how do I go about that? Through this group?

Kind regards,
Scott 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/8X7Wsx6yns4J.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.

Re: [protobuf] Re: Contribution: C++Builder Compiling

[Pherl Liu]

Thanks for the work! I've put a link in the 3rd party wiki
page


On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Scott Saad  wrote:

> A quick status update on this effort:
>
>- I forked the source at GitHub under the 
> protobuf-cppbuilderproject.
>- The biggest overarching changes revolved around namespaces. These
>changes were minimal but touched many files.
>   - Main cause of this change was a "using namespace std;" statement
>   in common.h. I removed this but then had to fully qualify std types when
>   there were used (i.e. string became std::string).
>   - C++Builder sometimes had problems resolving namespaces. For
>   example if we were in google::protobuf and something was referenced in
>   google::protobuf::internal, I had to qualify that by adding internal:: 
> to
>   whatever was being referenced.
>- Other changes revolved around #ifdef/#ifndef certain includes, etc.
>(similar to MSVC).
>- A very interesting compiler complaint that took me a while to track
>down was how dependent names were being sometimes used/declared. When they
>referred to types and templates I had to 
> disambiguate.
>This cleaned things up and made the source cleaning compile across all
>platforms.
>- *The libraries are compiling under C++Builder and can be linked
>against.*
>- *protoc is not fully working. *It compiles fine but gets a runtime
>error when parsing options. I'm not yet sure what's going on here. A
>workaround is to not use the protoc that gets compiled with this project,
>but use the distributed binary to generate the C++ protocol buffers. Hoping
>I can make some headway on this issue soon.
>- I've compiled all changes on both gcc and MSVC. *All unit tests are
>passing.*
>
> In my opinion these changes would be great to have merged back into the
> protobuf proper branch as most of them aim to make the code base more cross
> compiler compliant. I suppose the C++Builder is a bit more strict on a few
> items.
>
> I would be happy to produce is diff/patch to be looked at by a main
> contributor on the google project. Please just let me know what I can do to
> help facilitate this.
>

We'd like to accept patches. However, we don't have enough engineering
resources to maintain another platform. Supporting a different platform
requires much testing work in the release process (also user support). I'd
suggest to keep the C++ builder branch. You can always merge when a new
version of protobuf is released.


>
> Thank you,
> Scott Saad
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Protocol Buffers" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/5L32fr5BM-QJ.
>
> To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.

[protobuf] Re: Contribution: C++Builder Compiling

[Scott Saad]

My experience has been that C++Builder is worse (less standards- 
> compliant / less capable) than GCC and MSVC, so most changes to 
> accommodate it are actually working around its shortcomings. 
>

I've also struggled with C++Builder in the past.


> I was working some on getting protobuf to work in C++Builder as well. 
> I'm curious why you had to remove "using namespace std"?  I was able 
> to get it working without doing that.


IMHO, a "using namespace" statement in a header file is always a bad thing. 
I was running into weird namespace collision issues and was having trouble 
discerning between STL related ones and real problems. By removing that from 
common.h, it helped me zero in on what was causing some of the more 
seemingly obscure compile issues. Whether these issues were due to 
shortcomings of C++Builder's compiler I'm not comfortable/familiar enough 
with the C++ standard to be an authority on the matter.


>
> I think that you should not have removed 
> MessageType_WorkAroundCppLookupDefect (in wire_format_lite_inl.h) for 
> all compilers.  My understanding is that its intent is to avoid the 
> overhead of virtual function dispatch, although I couldn't get it to 
> work in C++Builder. 
>

Interesting, I will look closer at this as I'm unfamiliar as well.
 

>
> I'll have to give your version a try later.  It looks like you solved 
> a couple of problems that were giving me trouble. 
>

Thank you for your thoughts on these matters. Feedback is always welcomed! 
 
Scott

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/u0tizyUqGL0J.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.

[protobuf] Re: Contribution: C++Builder Compiling

[Josh Kelley]

On Oct 11, 11:32 am, Scott Saad  wrote:
> In my opinion these changes would be great to have merged back into the
> protobuf proper branch as most of them aim to make the code base more cross
> compiler compliant. I suppose the C++Builder is a bit more strict on a few
> items.

My experience has been that C++Builder is worse (less standards-
compliant / less capable) than GCC and MSVC, so most changes to
accommodate it are actually working around its shortcomings.

I was working some on getting protobuf to work in C++Builder as well.
I'm curious why you had to remove "using namespace std"?  I was able
to get it working without doing that.

I think that you should not have removed
MessageType_WorkAroundCppLookupDefect (in wire_format_lite_inl.h) for
all compilers.  My understanding is that its intent is to avoid the
overhead of virtual function dispatch, although I couldn't get it to
work in C++Builder.

I'll have to give your version a try later.  It looks like you solved
a couple of problems that were giving me trouble.

--
Josh Kelley

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.

[protobuf] Re: Contribution: C++Builder Compiling

[Scott Saad]

A quick status update on this effort:

   - I forked the source at GitHub under the 
protobuf-cppbuilderproject.
   - The biggest overarching changes revolved around namespaces. These 
   changes were minimal but touched many files.
  - Main cause of this change was a "using namespace std;" statement in 
  common.h. I removed this but then had to fully qualify std types when 
there 
  were used (i.e. string became std::string).
  - C++Builder sometimes had problems resolving namespaces. For example 
  if we were in google::protobuf and something was referenced in 
  google::protobuf::internal, I had to qualify that by adding internal:: to 
  whatever was being referenced. 
   - Other changes revolved around #ifdef/#ifndef certain includes, etc. 
   (similar to MSVC).
   - A very interesting compiler complaint that took me a while to track 
   down was how dependent names were being sometimes used/declared. When they 
   referred to types and templates I had to 
disambiguate.
 
   This cleaned things up and made the source cleaning compile across all 
   platforms.
   - *The libraries are compiling under C++Builder and can be linked 
   against.*
   - *protoc is not fully working. *It compiles fine but gets a runtime 
   error when parsing options. I'm not yet sure what's going on here. A 
   workaround is to not use the protoc that gets compiled with this project, 
   but use the distributed binary to generate the C++ protocol buffers. Hoping 
   I can make some headway on this issue soon.
   - I've compiled all changes on both gcc and MSVC. *All unit tests are 
   passing.*

In my opinion these changes would be great to have merged back into the 
protobuf proper branch as most of them aim to make the code base more cross 
compiler compliant. I suppose the C++Builder is a bit more strict on a few 
items. 

I would be happy to produce is diff/patch to be looked at by a main 
contributor on the google project. Please just let me know what I can do to 
help facilitate this.

Thank you,
Scott Saad

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/5L32fr5BM-QJ.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.