Re: Build process

On 2/23/07, Thiago Silva <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> On 2/23/07, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I've been fighting this problem while working on getting the VM to
> > build (and work) under linux -- I am going to get through the process
> > by manually modifying the includeDB files; misery loves company.
>
> Why are you modifying the includeDB?


Because its not correct.  GCC4.1.1 is complaining rabidly about incomplete
definititions of structs that have had "pre-declared" via foward
declarations, missing forward declarations in a number of cases, missing
definitions of inlines, and "externs", the list goes on.  The most straight
forward fix has been to simply add a few lines here and there to includeDB
and includeDB2.



> > I haven't been bitten by the primitive generator problem as of yet, but
> > the code is not compiling yet.  GCC 4.1.1 is not happy with large
> > amounts of the code and spending a good bit of time cleaning up things
> > that the latest version of VS.NET lets slide right through.
>
> Have you completed the compilation?


No, its mostly a sideline task at the moment.  I've got some research to
complete before I have to have the VM, so I'm using it as a "get away"
activity (when I need a break from reading papers or some other task);  I'm
about half way through.



> I have a patch that makes gcc happy, but I can't be sure about its
> correctness since my MingW/GCC build doesn't quite run the way I
> expected.


Your patch does not make GCC 4.1.1 happy, least wise not on Linux.



> Also, imho, I think it might be specially difficult to get the VM
> working on GNU/Linux with the current sources. Not only one has to
> make a few non-trivial changes in the source in order to have it
> compiling with GCC (such as some casts, and notably inline assembly
> code, AFAIR) but also has to port the TASM assembly files and the
> os.cpp so it uses the SO threads and so on. All this in one shot might
> be too much to debug if things go wrong.



> That's why I would suggest a compiler port (ie. make things work with
> GCC first) before an OS port.


Thiago, I appreciate your advice here, and I've been struggling to word this
in some fashion that doesn't come off as arrogant and/or condescending.
I've been doing this sort of development for 20 years now and my skills are
up to the task, plus I've got you and the rest of the folks on the mailing
list for questions if the need arises. Again, please don't take the above as
"he thinks I'm an idiot" and throw your hands up declaring "Dave's a jerk" -
The former couldn't be farther from the truth, and I do what I can to avoid
generating unnecessary bad karma.

best regards,
      Dave

-- 
A man's greatest treasure is his wife, she is a gift from the Lord
- Proverbs 18:22

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Strongtalk-general" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/strongtalk-general?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---