[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] chicken-iup - progressing nicely but have problem wi

From: Oleg Kolosov
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] chicken-iup - progressing nicely but have problem with canvas-draw
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 23:54:17 +0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0

On 02/04/14 19:13, John Cowan wrote:
> Peter Bex scripsit:
>> This looks very useful indeed.  Is the documentation for CMake better
>> nowadays?  I seem to recall that was the main reason we dropped CMake,
>> because nobody besides one person understood it well enough to maintain
>> the build.
> That was part of it.  In addition, CMake was unstable -- we were
> constantly changing our build process to cope with new and incompatible
> versions of CMake (also a problem with autotools) -- and it wasn't truly
> able to cope with our meta-circular build process, and that had to be
> kludged around.  IMO, depending on GNU make only is the Right Thing for
> us: it is rock solid, and if we have to deal with each port separately
> to some degree, so what?  There are not hundreds of targets these days
> that are of practical interest.
We use CMake for moderately complex project with heavy mix of Chicken, C
and various external dependencies. Transition from Make was pain but I
can't remember major problems with the setup. On the plus side, once you
have custom modules for hard parts the usage for not initiated is quite
straightforward. Cross-compilation and keeping few build configurations
around is much easier. I'm not proposing reconsidering CMake for
building Chicken itself, just sharing experience. Maybe I'll try to look
into this.
> What do you think of my idea of dropping even GNU make for MSVC support
> and just compiling everything with a batch file?  One thing I note is
> that MSVC's C compiler is C89 only; do we have dependencies on post-C89
> syntax either in Chicken itself (which presumably could be worked around)
> or in the generated code?
This may actually simplify things for distribution tarballs, but
dropping build system altogether might bring major pain for developers
of the Chicken itself.

Regards, Oleg

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]