[erlang-questions] A project to replace build system with CMake

[Dmytro Lytovchenko]

> - not tested on Solaris, any flavour of OSX, or OpenBSD or NetBSD.
Because it is work in progress, and then i decided to ask for more opinions
before either putting effort to finish and deliver it (which i admit is a
fair amount of effort remaining to be done) or throwing it away. I have
access to Linux x64, latest OSX and possibly one of previous versions, and
Windows 10, and can try get my hands on virtual machines for those other
you mentioned, should the project go this far.

> - requires cmake
> had bad experiences with.
For that i am sorry :)

> What is the problem with C99/C11 under Cygwin?
On Windows otp is built using MSVS 2013+ AND at the same time the inner
loop beam_emu.c is built using GCC from Cygwin, this was old team's choice
probably because MSVC is a fairly good compiler but it doesn't support
labels as pointers feature for inner VM loop. Microsoft clearly stated that
it will never ever develop support for C99 and newer, this is why otp
source is stuck in stone age with C89, last time i asked. I believe this
spell can be broken by using C++ mode in MSVC or using GCC to build
everything on Windows.

> I wonder whether some of the Pro points could not be achieved using the
existing infrastructure?
I never said something isn't possible. With effort and dedication anything
is possible. It is just me, who dislikes existing infrastructure to such
extent that several weeks dedicated to try and replace it with modern
alternative seemed a fair price.

tis 16 aug. 2016 kl 22:34 skrev <ok@REDACTED>:

> "Dmytro Lytovchenko" <dmytro.lytovchenko@REDACTED>
> wrote about a project to build Erlang using cmake.
> He missed a couple of Cons:
> - not tested on Solaris, any flavour of OSX, or OpenBSD or NetBSD.
>   So it's no use to me.
> - requires cmake
>   For some systems I use, this would mean having to install cmake.
>   For others, having to reinstall.
>   For all, having to use a system I've had bad experiences with.
>
> I wonder whether some of the Pro points could not be achieved
> using the existing infrastructure?
>
> What is the problem with C99/C11 under Cygwin?
> GCC 4.9.2 was running under Cygwin about 2 years ago,
> and that handled C99/C11 just fine (I thought)
> and even supported some C++14 features.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20160816/c307459f/attachment.htm>