Am 01.11.2013 um 08:27 schrieb Kazunobu Kuriyama <[email protected]>: > 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
Are we talking about the same patches? I was referring to the patch you send to the vim_dev list with the subject "[patch] src/os_unix.c (for build on Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks)“. To compare https://gist.github.com/6150257 (my patch) and https://gist.github.com/felixbuenemann/7283250 (KK’s patch). I think they achieve exactly the same think and the only difference is that my patch uses configure to check if AvailabilityMacros.h is available, while KK’s patch uses some existing preprocessor macros. This means that only one of the patches should be used. Felix -- -- 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.
