On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 10:37 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 17:46 +0800, Barry Kauler wrote:
> > I am very interested in what you have done, with your "Multiboot"
> > code. I'm wondering how far this can be pushed. Is it feasible to code
> > in a subset of Vala/Genie such that G
and slow process.
Yu
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 19:58 +, Sam Liddicott wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: JustFillBug
> Sent: 14 March 2009 06:00
> To: vala-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: [Vala] Creating executables without glib/gobject
>
> >This is crazy. I
Am Samstag, den 14.03.2009, 06:00 + schrieb JustFillBug:
> On 2009-03-12, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> >
> > Various users seem to be interested in using Vala also for non-GLib
> > based applications. I wouldn't be opposed to supporting, for example, a
> > POSIX backend where GLib would not be manda
-Original Message-
From: JustFillBug
Sent: 14 March 2009 06:00
To: vala-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Vala] Creating executables without glib/gobject
>This is crazy. If go down this path, people will eventually reinvent
>glib at the end.
Maybe. But glib wil never get linked in
On 2009-03-12, Jürg Billeter wrote:
>
> Various users seem to be interested in using Vala also for non-GLib
> based applications. I wouldn't be opposed to supporting, for example, a
> POSIX backend where GLib would not be mandatory. However, this is not
This is crazy. If go down this path, people
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 17:46 +0800, Barry Kauler wrote:
> I am very interested in what you have done, with your "Multiboot"
> code. I'm wondering how far this can be pushed. Is it feasible to code
> in a subset of Vala/Genie such that Glib/Gobject is not required, only
> the C library, so the execut
static glib with dietlibc? ...I've been down that path.
With dietlibc I got errors that I couldn't solve, so I tried uClibc
and that worked.
I ended up with libglib.a, libgmodule.a, libgobject.a, libgthread.a. I
also had to compile libiconv statically in the uClibc build
environment.
I was then a
Hi Barry:
2009/3/11 Barry Kauler
> Matías De la Puente,
> I am very interested in what you have done, with your "Multiboot"
> code. I'm wondering how far this can be pushed. Is it feasible to code
> in a subset of Vala/Genie such that Glib/Gobject is not required, only
> the C library, so the ex
* Andrea Bolognani wrote, On 11/03/09 11:12:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:46:06 +0800
> Barry Kauler wrote:
>
>
>> #define G_BEGIN_DECLS
>> #define G_END_DECLS
>>
>
> I can't answer your question, but I'd like to point out that G_BEGIN_DECLS
> and G_END_DECLS, as the names suggest, are suppo
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:46:06 +0800
Barry Kauler wrote:
> #define G_BEGIN_DECLS
> #define G_END_DECLS
I can't answer your question, but I'd like to point out that G_BEGIN_DECLS
and G_END_DECLS, as the names suggest, are supposed to be before and after
the declarations respectively.
So you shoul
Matías De la Puente,
I am very interested in what you have done, with your "Multiboot"
code. I'm wondering how far this can be pushed. Is it feasible to code
in a subset of Vala/Genie such that Glib/Gobject is not required, only
the C library, so the executable could be compiled statically with
die
11 matches
Mail list logo
