On Nov 3, 2013, at 6:09 AM, Bram Moolenaar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Felix Buenemann wrote: > >> 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. > > I sent out two patches that combine them, using the configure check for > Kazonubu's patch as well. Please check it works this way. Bram, Please include my patch as it was; otherwise, it won’t work as expected. In fact, Patch 7.4.056 fails to compile os_unix.c. Let me clarify my point in another way: Felix Bünemann’s patch doesn’t cover the case where the configuration option -—disable-darwin is chosen in the build on the Mac. I’d like to remind you of Section 1.2 of src/INSTALLmac.txt, that is, there is another way to build vim differently from that of MacVim or alike. That’s why I sent my patch to vim_dev, not to mac_vim; the patch fixes a problem which is almost irrelevant to MacVim. -- -- 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.
