Subject: Re: Changes to psiconv for Windows
From: Tom Briggs (tom@sane.com)
Date: Sun Feb 11 2001 - 00:14:26 CST
> > I've finally gotten psiconv building correctly on Windows. I had to make
> > a few simple changes to compat/Makefile.in, psiconv/Makefile.in and ltconfig
> > in order to get it to work; unfortunately I don't have a diff handy, but the
> > changes are extremely simple and should be easy enough to locate in Abi's
> > Bonsai.
>
> I hope you are saying: compat/Makefile.am and psiconv/Makefile.am. If
> not, these changes will get lost next time I run automake :-(
> I sent a patch a few minutes ago; can you please check whether it
> contains valid definitions for you? If not, can you please send
> me your changes, so that I can incorporate them somehow into the
> Makefile.am?
The problem is that Makefile.in (and therefore Makefile) contains gcc
specific preprocessor flags (-Wp,...). This causes the resulting
Makefile to be unusable with MSVC.
I looked at both Makefile.am as well as the patch you mentioned, and neither
seemed to contain the troublesome flags. Therefore I doubt that the patch will
fix anything.
> > 2. Is there any way to tell configure to not compile in the compat stuff?
> > As far as I can tell none of that stuff is necessary for Windows, but having
> > it present makes linking a little uglier. This wasn't hard to work around
> > either, but it would be better for the Win32 build if the compat stuff
> > wasn't compiled in at all.
>
> It is really needed for some systems. It would be quite hard to not
> add it. If libtool handles msvc correctly, it should work automatically;
I understand that it's needed by some systems, but I see no reason why it
has to be included for those that don't. It caused some easily fixable problems
for me with MSVC, but on a fundamental level, I object to not only compiling in
but hacking Makefiles to handle code that I know isn't needed.
I'm not saying that the need (or lack of a need) for the compat stuff
should be automagically detected - a simple --without-compat option or
something like that would be satisfactory as far as I'm concerned.
-Tom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sun Feb 11 2001 - 00:15:37 CST