Re: httpd win64 "project" sources/makefiles [was:...binaries]

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
>>
> I compiled them on vs2008 IIRC (not sure only boot into the vm when
> need to compile)
> Sadly the exact same version is needed or else it refuses to load.
> That is what wrowe mentioned above with all the minor version bumps
> here and there.

Precisely.  Also note; VC2008 studio file cannot load in studio 2005.
This might also be true of SP bumps.

Today, it's VC6 dsw/dsp's only because that was the last version able
to export a set of non-studio Makefiles.  If we eliminate the need to
export win32's makefiles, we eliminate dsp's altogether.

So as far as .sln's are concerned, if we can emit, from our build
schema, either .vcproj elements or makefiles or both, then we can
forever drop VC6 files.  VC6 certainly would still compile, but using
the command line.  I can't seriously believe that we should support
the IDE itself forever.

But studio (or eclipse or codewarrior or [name your IDE]) users would
appreciate a perspective into the sources.  The IDE-accessible nature
of the original Win32 port is what made it so easy for me to jump in,
understand and substantially refactor the win32 support.  Without the
IDE view, would I have done that?  Maybe - but at that time in my
development patterns - more likely not.

Lets look to supporting [name your favorite IDE] as a bigger picture
item not specific to windows, and to transition away from .dsp for
the build/ide view support.

Bill

Re: httpd win64 "project" sources/makefiles [was:...binaries]

[Bing Swen <bs...@pku.edu.cn>]

"Dan Poirier" <po...@pobox.com>　wrote on 2008-11-3 21:13

> William A. Rowe, Jr. said the following on 11/03/2008 07:32 AM:
>>
>> Lets look to supporting [name your favorite IDE] as a bigger picture
>> item not specific to windows, and to transition away from .dsp for
>> the build/ide view support.
>
> Re: windows, aren't there one or more ports of gcc?  Would something like 
> that be worth considering as a more stable build solution than MS's tools?

There is a runtime library issue. Most GCC ports do not generate object code 
that can be linked with the necessary WinAPI runtime lib's. e.g, httpd needs 
to link to lots of MS C startup libraris to use the file system, socket API, 
IOCP, etc.

Bing 

Re: httpd win64 "project" sources/makefiles [was:...binaries]

[Dan Poirier <po...@pobox.com>]

William A. Rowe, Jr. said the following on 11/03/2008 07:32 AM:
> But studio (or eclipse or codewarrior or [name your IDE]) users would
> appreciate a perspective into the sources.  The IDE-accessible nature
> of the original Win32 port is what made it so easy for me to jump in,
> understand and substantially refactor the win32 support.  Without the
> IDE view, would I have done that?  Maybe - but at that time in my
> development patterns - more likely not.
> 
> Lets look to supporting [name your favorite IDE] as a bigger picture
> item not specific to windows, and to transition away from .dsp for
> the build/ide view support.

I'm still getting my head around how all the parts of Apache work 
together, and would love to be able to dive into it using Eclipse and 
explore.  The advantage of Eclipse would be that it's more 
cross-platform than most of the alternatives that I'm aware of.

Re: windows, aren't there one or more ports of gcc?  Would something 
like that be worth considering as a more stable build solution than MS's 
tools?

Dan