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
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>