Felix Buenemann wrote:
> Am 01.11.2013 um 08:27 schrieb Kazunobu Kuriyama
> <kazunobu.kuriy...@nifty.com>:
> > On Nov 1, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Bram Moolenaar <b...@moolenaar.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Felix Buenemann wrote:
> >>> Am 27.10.2013 um 16:02 schrieb Bram Moolenaar <b...@moolenaar.net>:
> >>>> 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.
I sent out two patches that combine them, using the configure check for
Kazonubu's patch as well. Please check it works this way.
--
Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.
[real standing law in Florida, United States of America]
/// Bram Moolenaar -- b...@moolenaar.net -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
--
--
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 vim_mac+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
