On Nov 1, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Bram Moolenaar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Felix Buenemann wrote: > >> Am 27.10.2013 um 16:02 schrieb Bram Moolenaar <[email protected]>: >>> 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
