chicken-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Chicken-users] status of the cmake build on win32


From: felix winkelmann
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] status of the cmake build on win32
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:05:24 +0200

On 9/15/06, Brandon J. Van Every <address@hidden> wrote:

I'm able to build and install the current Darcs head, using MSVC 7.1.

Very good. The MSVC/win32 version of chicken-setup works also, completely
with downloading/extraction, provided some sort of tar and gunzip is
in your path. I used
<http://www.call-with-current-continuation.org/UnxUtils.zip>
successfully.

So, the remaining problems with chicken-setup must be gcc/cmake
related (or better: that specific combination). Is this assumption correct?
John: does chicken-setup (the current version) run on cygwin with
the autoconf build?

All MSVC libraries have *.lib as their suffix, whether it's debug,
release, static, or a dynamic stub.  These need to be disambiguated
somehow for various purposes.  Postfixes is one way; installing them to
distinct directories is another.  Either way, Chicken has to know how to
do something that it is not currently doing.  So what way do you think
would be easiest to implement and support?  A lot of MSVC developers do
prefer the directory approach, but this also contributes to "DLL Hell"
and directory selection errors.  Boost doesn't think it's a good
practice and explicitly names libraries with all sorts of postfixes for
all the different permutations.  I think Boost has the right idea as far
as "industrial strength" programming goes.

I think that we should drop the suffixes (like "-d" for Debug, etc.) as most
Users will only build a single version of the libraries, usually Release.
In fact, I have already changed this in CMakeListst.txt (darcs head), I hope
this is ok for you. I probably implemented it rather naively, but I wasn't
sure whether CMake uses some kind of default.



> - make uninstall seems to be ineffective.

Hrm.  On my Windows 2000 box, it seems to be partly effective, but
leaves a lot of stuff behind.


Strange. Well, it's not critical in the moment.


cheers,
felix

--
http://galinha.ucpel.tche.br:8081/blog/blog.ssp




reply via email to

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