r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3 Extensions] REBOL 3 Extensions discussions

Carl
12-Jul-2010
[827]
Pretty easy to do, but let's take this one step first.
Andreas
12-Jul-2010
[828]
Do you have an integrated cross-plattform build for the host-kit?
Carl
12-Jul-2010
[829]
Graham: I got the message on protocols and it's on the list.
Andreas
12-Jul-2010
[830]
If not, someone could write one, if you release a Linux hostkit as 
well. If you do, why not release a single cross-platform package?
Carl
12-Jul-2010
[831x3]
Andreas, no, but only because not yet tried that.  Only minor edits 
to the makefile required to build on Linux. If you get that to work, 
then can get you the r3lib to try it. Let me know.
(That's because we don't build view yet for Linux.)
(Only Core)
Andreas
12-Jul-2010
[834]
Yeah, I'd really appreciate if you could send libr3.so to me. I already 
wrote an integrated build for the A96 hostkit.
Carl
12-Jul-2010
[835]
What exactly do you mean "integrated build" -- you mean makefile?
Andreas
12-Jul-2010
[836]
A single source base which automatically builds correctly for the 
platform the build tool is invoked on.
Carl
12-Jul-2010
[837]
What have you tried it on?
Andreas
12-Jul-2010
[838x2]
A96 hostkit on Linux and Win32.
Yes, it basically boils down to an adapted Makefile along with an 
auto-generated header file (or defines) for platform-specific config.
Carl
12-Jul-2010
[840x4]
A few things on that...
The makefile is auto-generated and changes with each release. 


Also, there are big variations in make between target platforms (some 
are really horrible.) So, the makefile is kept very "dumb" to allow 
those builds.
So, we will want to get the makefile maker to do the right thing.
Second, the config controls are already part of R3, and are triggered 
by the reb-to.h file.
Andreas
12-Jul-2010
[844]
I used CMake, which is a cross-plattform tool that automatically 
generates "project" files for a variety of targets (such as GNU Make, 
Eclipse project files, Visual Studio project files). It works great 
on Linux, Win32, OSX and is used by several high-profile projects. 
But I'm well aware that third-party tools are most likely no-go for 
REBOL, so I'm fine with all that, and can easily look into it, as 
long as there' s at least a Linux hostkit available.
Carl
12-Jul-2010
[845]
So, what header files do you find a need to generate above?
AdrianS
12-Jul-2010
[846]
I would recommend cmake as well, seems to work well
Andreas
12-Jul-2010
[847]
I can only talk about A96.
Carl
12-Jul-2010
[848]
What is the input to cmake?
Graham
12-Jul-2010
[849]
http://203.97.234.193:8080/secure/project/ViewProject.jspa?pid=10020 
... I've added a hostkit tracker to my Jira instance.
Carl
12-Jul-2010
[850]
BTW, no, I'm fine with supporting as many target formats as possible!
Andreas
12-Jul-2010
[851]
CMake does basically the same thing your "makefile maker" tries do 
to.
Carl
12-Jul-2010
[852]
So far I've built it on about 5 different targets... but there are 
many more. For instance, we've talked about ARM, but the ARM tools 
are really crude (at least what I've got here.)
Andreas
12-Jul-2010
[853x2]
The most common ARM tooling is just GCC.
CMake Input is a "CMakeLists.txt" file, which is written in "just 
another Makefile language".
Carl
12-Jul-2010
[855]
Yes, but the ARM make tool looked like 1982 the last time I tried 
it.
Andreas
12-Jul-2010
[856]
No idea what you tried, but you'd typically just use GNU make on 
ARM as well.
Carl
12-Jul-2010
[857]
Have you tried using the makefile on BSD or OSX?
Andreas
12-Jul-2010
[858]
No, as there is no hostkit release for either of those.
Carl
12-Jul-2010
[859]
Basically, same as Linux right now.
Andreas
12-Jul-2010
[860x2]
Can't sensibly try without e.g. a OSX dylib.
But I prodded you for weeks to build one :)
Carl
12-Jul-2010
[862x2]
Also, problematic builds are Sun and HP Unix. But, anyway, if people 
are willing to add them, it's ok with me.
Right... I remember that now. We'll have to give it another go.
Andreas
12-Jul-2010
[864]
I guess sticking with the big three (+ BSD, maybe) will be sufficient 
for now.
AdrianS
12-Jul-2010
[865]
here's the CMakeLists.txt from the OpenCV project , as an example:


https://code.ros.org/svn/opencv/tags/latest_tested_snapshot/opencv/CMakeLists.txt
Andreas
12-Jul-2010
[866x2]
In my opinion, there are bigger problems to tackle before spreading 
thin over multiple platforms makes sense.
(Eventing, for example)
Carl
12-Jul-2010
[868]
Yes, of course, but if more developers get involved, the work does 
not need to be sequential.
Graham
12-Jul-2010
[869]
Oh yeah ..let's get an Os/2 build too !
Carl
12-Jul-2010
[870]
Hmmm.
Andreas
12-Jul-2010
[871]
http://bolka.at/2010/rebol3/CMakeLists.txt.html
Carl
12-Jul-2010
[872]
Looking at above link, I don't think cmake provides much benefit 
to us.
Graham
12-Jul-2010
[873]
( the current version of Os/2 is ecomworkstation  and is positioned 
as a secure enterprise client environemnt )
Andreas
12-Jul-2010
[874x2]
Here's the CMake buildfile I use for the A96 hostkit
CMake provides the benefit that we don't have to reinvent the wheel 
for now. It has, for example, a nice installer for Win32 and can 
automatically generate Visual Studio project files from the above.
AdrianS
12-Jul-2010
[876]
well, if you are considering a makefile generator, at least cmake 
is somewhat of a standard