On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Gerhard Reitmayr wrote:
I don't know. I think Ed used it with mingw ?
I use mingw, but that uses GNU make. I strongly suspect you could
get away with GNU make from MinGW, and the visual studio compiler.
Of course, the CXXFLAGS would need changing.
Or, one could have a simplified makefile, which would work.
Much of the complexity of the makefile is to allow it to be
autoconfigured, for doing make install, making .sos or .dylibs on
different systems, doing debug builds and so on. If one was to use
the current approach of dropping support for configuration , then a
simple makefile would work very well.
not really an option for me. very VC heavy environment and I would
actually give up the one good thing, the IDE.
but, maybe something like cmake is a possible solution?
There's a bunch of problems which need solving. As far as I can
tell, cmake will solve much of what the configure script and
makefile currently do (ie testing for installed software and so on).
I have no idea how to do the configure time dependency resolution
which I hacked in a while back.
Sounds like a lot or work, though.
Also, I seem to remember that cmake creates recursive makefiles
under unix. If this is the case, then it is evil and nasty, and will
make the building process under unix somewhat less pleasant, and
considerably slower on heavily multicore systems. I may be mistaken,
though.
Getting in to wilder territory... the visual studio project files
appear to be a quite simple XML format. It would probably be quite
straightforward to generate one automatically from the configure
script. That would remove almost all of the maintainance.
Also, I believe that it is possible to run a configure script with
visual studio as the compiler. Apparently one needs a wrapper script
to mangle GCC commandline arguments in to visual studio ones, but
this does exist. One could also hack the configure script to not be
too addicted to - instead of /. That way, one could get by with a
mix of mingw/cygwin and visual studio.
-Ed
On 23 Jul 2009, at 17:45, Georg Klein wrote:
Does cvd compile with the free command line only tools?
using a makefile?
On 23 Jul 2009, at 15:17, Gerhard Reitmayr <address@hidden> wrote:
Hi everyone,
just a quick heads-up on what I plan to do with the Windows
project files. Its getting tedious to keep all the include and
lib paths correct in lots of project files, so I propose to do
the following:
- do a unix style install into three directories for headers,
libs and bins (which include the shared libraries, dlls under
windows)
- these three directories are set by the user with three
environment variables:
INCLUDEDIR, LIBDIR, BINDIR . of course they can be set from a
single common prefix like this:
PREFIX=something
INCLUDEDIR=%something%\include
etc.
- project files will only use a single include dir (besides the
local one) and libdir
- projects will also have an install project which copies the
files into the installation location defined above.
- some 3rd party libraries (like jpeg, ptheads-win32) can be
copied by the user into these directories to make them available.
what do you think ? any thoughts about this ?
cheers,
Gerhard
--
Gerhard Reitmayr
MIL, Engineering Department, Cambridge University
http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/~gr281/
_______________________________________________
libcvd-members mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libcvd-members
--
Gerhard Reitmayr
MIL, Engineering Department, Cambridge University
http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/~gr281/
_______________________________________________
libcvd-members mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libcvd-members
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.)(http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/~er258)
/d{def}def/f{/Times s selectfont}d/s{11}d/r{roll}d f 2/m{moveto}d -1
r 230 350 m 0 1 179{ 1 index show 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 12
d f pop 235 420 translate 0 0 moveto 1 2 scale show showpage