MSVC support, was: Compilers and configuration tools

[bo...@earthlink.net]

Tanuj,

Welcome!  Thank you for your observations about compiler support.
I tried to write my code so as to be as independent of a particular
operating system and a particular compiler as possible, so I hope
that compiling for MSVC is a simple matter.  As far as whether we
should move in that direction, I have stated an opinion that it would
provide easy access to a large base of developers who are familiar
with that compiler and its IDE.  Others have stated concerns about
supporting multiple compilers being a potential source of logistical
problems.

I'd like to ask The List for more opinions for weighing this issue.

(1) Is MSVC support a good move?  It is necessary?  Is it a problem?
Is it prudent?

(2) If we look into supporting several compilers more generally,
do we widen our horizons as to what platforms we can run Harmony on?
Do we create logistical problems by doing so?

How about you folks from projects that have done this sort of thing
in the past?  What do you say?

My opinion-- Itis rather unusual for me that we should be here
because _my_ experience has typically been the inverse:  Support
a single compiler on multiple platforms per architectural
requirements, not support multiple compilers on one platform.
This is why I would ask for the collective wisdom of The List.

Tanuj, thanks for your interest in MSVC support.  Let's see what
people say concerning strategic issues of supporting MSVC.


Dan Lydick


> [Original Message]
> From: Tanuj Mathur <ta...@gmail.com>
> To: Apache Harmony Bootstrap JVM <bo...@earthlink.net>;
<ha...@incubator.apache.org>
> Date: 10/24/05 4:44:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Compilers and configuration tools
>
> Hi,
>   I'd like to help out with supporting the MSVC compiler on Windows.
> I'm tied up with work this week, but can take a look at the task from
> next Monday.
>   Geir, regarding your concerns about MSVC's commercial nature being a
> barrier to entry, I am sure that wouldn't be a problem, as the MSVC
> optimizing compiler is available as a free download from Microsoft's
> website:
>        
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3D272be09d=
> -40bb-49fd-9cb0-4bfa122fa91b&displaylang=3Den
>   It is only the actual IDE that is commercial, with the Express
> Editions estimated to cost $49 per copy (although the betas are free,
> as Devanum pointed out).
>   It would probably be wise to focus most of the group's initial
> efforts on maintaining GCC support, while a few interested people can
> work on maintaining  support for other compilers. I believe that the
> feedback from the work done on adding compiler compatibility would be
> of easier to incorporate if we start early,with the smaller/younger
> code base, instead of waiting till later.
> 
> - tanuj
> 
> 
> On 10/22/05, Apache Harmony Bootstrap JVM <bo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > I'm with Geir on his comments, but evaluating MSVC
> > I think is a good idea because there are so many
> > folks who use it-- or is it?  Rodrigo' comments about
> > confusion with multiple compiler support make a
> > compelling argument about going with _one_
> > compiler-- and look at the minor diffs we have
> > already experienced!  Rodrigo needs '__int64' on
> > hit Linux box, and Robin is arguing with finding
> > the correct 'thread.h' (apparently), and I had no
> > problems.  All of us are using GCC.  What does
> > this tell us?  The less we deal with mechanical
> > issues like compiler invocations, the more real
> > work we get done.
> >
> > Bottom line:  Should we just declare one compiler
> > for now and branch out later, once we have all of
> > our porting done?
> >
> > Next observation:  There has been an offer of help
> > with 'autotools' and some concern about that tool.
> > I've seen GNU autoconf work (part of autotools?)
> > nicely, and I'm interested in exploring this avenue
> > further.
> >
> > Dan Lydick
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Oct 21, 2005 10:31 AM
> > To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Small problems building under cygwin
> >
> > I believe Express versions are available for download -
> > http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/visualc/default.aspx
> >
> > -- dims
> >
> > On 10/21/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > I'd like to be sure that we don't have a barrier to entry by having
> > > to go get commercial software to  build the project - by this I mean
> > > a MSVC requirement.  I'm happy if windows users can use MSVC if they
> > > want - i.e. if someone supports it - but it can't be the only option.
> > >
> > > geir
> > >
> > ...snip...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dan Lydick
> >

Re: MSVC support, was: Compilers and configuration tools

[Rodrigo Kumpera <ku...@gmail.com>]

Supporting many compilers have a few problems, the three I can think
of right now are, assembly sintax (intel x at&t), compiler extensions
(gcc's computed goto can speed interpreters a lot) and c++ libraries
nuanses (iff c++ is used).



On 10/24/05, bootjvm@earthlink.net <bo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Tanuj,
>
> Welcome!  Thank you for your observations about compiler support.
> I tried to write my code so as to be as independent of a particular
> operating system and a particular compiler as possible, so I hope
> that compiling for MSVC is a simple matter.  As far as whether we
> should move in that direction, I have stated an opinion that it would
> provide easy access to a large base of developers who are familiar
> with that compiler and its IDE.  Others have stated concerns about
> supporting multiple compilers being a potential source of logistical
> problems.
>
> I'd like to ask The List for more opinions for weighing this issue.
>
> (1) Is MSVC support a good move?  It is necessary?  Is it a problem?
> Is it prudent?
>
> (2) If we look into supporting several compilers more generally,
> do we widen our horizons as to what platforms we can run Harmony on?
> Do we create logistical problems by doing so?
>
> How about you folks from projects that have done this sort of thing
> in the past?  What do you say?
>
> My opinion-- Itis rather unusual for me that we should be here
> because _my_ experience has typically been the inverse:  Support
> a single compiler on multiple platforms per architectural
> requirements, not support multiple compilers on one platform.
> This is why I would ask for the collective wisdom of The List.
>
> Tanuj, thanks for your interest in MSVC support.  Let's see what
> people say concerning strategic issues of supporting MSVC.
>
>
> Dan Lydick
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Tanuj Mathur <ta...@gmail.com>
> > To: Apache Harmony Bootstrap JVM <bo...@earthlink.net>;
> <ha...@incubator.apache.org>
> > Date: 10/24/05 4:44:32 AM
> > Subject: Re: Compilers and configuration tools
> >
> > Hi,
>
> >   I'd like to help out with supporting the MSVC compiler on Windows.
>
> > I'm tied up with work this week, but can take a look at the task from
>
> > next Monday.
>
> >   Geir, regarding your concerns about MSVC's commercial nature being a
>
> > barrier to entry, I am sure that wouldn't be a problem, as the MSVC
>
> > optimizing compiler is available as a free download from Microsoft's
>
> > website:
>
> >
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3D272be09d=
>
> > -40bb-49fd-9cb0-4bfa122fa91b&displaylang=3Den
>
> >   It is only the actual IDE that is commercial, with the Express
>
> > Editions estimated to cost $49 per copy (although the betas are free,
>
> > as Devanum pointed out).
>
> >   It would probably be wise to focus most of the group's initial
>
> > efforts on maintaining GCC support, while a few interested people can
>
> > work on maintaining  support for other compilers. I believe that the
>
> > feedback from the work done on adding compiler compatibility would be
>
> > of easier to incorporate if we start early,with the smaller/younger
>
> > code base, instead of waiting till later.
>
> >
>
> > - tanuj
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On 10/22/05, Apache Harmony Bootstrap JVM <bo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > I'm with Geir on his comments, but evaluating MSVC
>
> > > I think is a good idea because there are so many
>
> > > folks who use it-- or is it?  Rodrigo' comments about
>
> > > confusion with multiple compiler support make a
>
> > > compelling argument about going with _one_
>
> > > compiler-- and look at the minor diffs we have
>
> > > already experienced!  Rodrigo needs '__int64' on
>
> > > hit Linux box, and Robin is arguing with finding
>
> > > the correct 'thread.h' (apparently), and I had no
>
> > > problems.  All of us are using GCC.  What does
>
> > > this tell us?  The less we deal with mechanical
>
> > > issues like compiler invocations, the more real
>
> > > work we get done.
>
> > >
>
> > > Bottom line:  Should we just declare one compiler
>
> > > for now and branch out later, once we have all of
>
> > > our porting done?
>
> > >
>
> > > Next observation:  There has been an offer of help
>
> > > with 'autotools' and some concern about that tool.
>
> > > I've seen GNU autoconf work (part of autotools?)
>
> > > nicely, and I'm interested in exploring this avenue
>
> > > further.
>
> > >
>
> > > Dan Lydick
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > > From: Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>
>
> > > Sent: Oct 21, 2005 10:31 AM
>
> > > To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
>
> > > Subject: Re: Small problems building under cygwin
>
> > >
>
> > > I believe Express versions are available for download -
>
> > > http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/visualc/default.aspx
>
> > >
>
> > > -- dims
>
> > >
>
> > > On 10/21/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > > > I'd like to be sure that we don't have a barrier to entry by having
>
> > > > to go get commercial software to  build the project - by this I mean
>
> > > > a MSVC requirement.  I'm happy if windows users can use MSVC if they
>
> > > > want - i.e. if someone supports it - but it can't be the only option.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > geir
>
> > > >
>
> > > ...snip...
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Dan Lydick
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>