www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

c++.wxwindows - supporting dmc/gnumake

reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Is there any reason why there can't be a dmc/gmake target in the wx 
bakefiles?  The official story seems to be that the dmars target is 
crippled because dmars make is crippled.  But why bother with dmars make 
when there are at least three free ports of gnumake for win32 out there 
that I know of [1].

Is there some mystery magic that lurks within dmars' make that can't be 
duplicated in gnumake?


[1] cygwin, MSYS, and gnuwin32

--bb
May 29 2007
parent reply chris elliott <biol75 york.ac.uk> writes:
Hi, I suggest you buy smake

Extended Utilities Package  at http://www.digitalmars.com/eup.html

and use smake -makefile.dms

Walter is very good at fixing bugs, so we do need to use his tools.

chris

Bill Baxter wrote:
 Is there any reason why there can't be a dmc/gmake target in the wx 
 bakefiles?  The official story seems to be that the dmars target is 
 crippled because dmars make is crippled.  But why bother with dmars make 
 when there are at least three free ports of gnumake for win32 out there 
 that I know of [1].
 
 Is there some mystery magic that lurks within dmars' make that can't be 
 duplicated in gnumake?
 
 
 [1] cygwin, MSYS, and gnuwin32
 
 --bb

May 30 2007
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Yes, you're probably right.  Spending $15 for something I don't really 
need is probably a better value proposition than spending 20 hours 
trying to implement something I don't really need.

But the question remains, is there anything preventing one from 
implementing a dmars_gmake bakefile target?  It doesn't seem like it 
should be that difficult to make a hybrid out of the mingw bakefiles and 
dmars bakefiles, given familiarity with how bakefile works.

You're right -- I'm probably not going to do it, but the answer to the 
above question tells me something about the flexibility of the bakefile 
system, and that's of interest to me.  And doing it could be a good way 
to get acquainted with bakefile's internals.

--bb

chris elliott wrote:
 Hi, I suggest you buy smake
 
 Extended Utilities Package  at http://www.digitalmars.com/eup.html
 
 and use smake -makefile.dms
 
 Walter is very good at fixing bugs, so we do need to use his tools.
 
 chris
 
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Is there any reason why there can't be a dmc/gmake target in the wx 
 bakefiles?  The official story seems to be that the dmars target is 
 crippled because dmars make is crippled.  But why bother with dmars 
 make when there are at least three free ports of gnumake for win32 out 
 there that I know of [1].

 Is there some mystery magic that lurks within dmars' make that can't 
 be duplicated in gnumake?


 [1] cygwin, MSYS, and gnuwin32

 --bb


May 30 2007
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:
 Yes, you're probably right.  Spending $15 for something I don't really 
 need is probably a better value proposition than spending 20 hours 
 trying to implement something I don't really need.
 
 But the question remains, is there anything preventing one from 
 implementing a dmars_gmake bakefile target?  It doesn't seem like it 
 should be that difficult to make a hybrid out of the mingw bakefiles and 
 dmars bakefiles, given familiarity with how bakefile works.
 
 You're right -- I'm probably not going to do it, but the answer to the 
 above question tells me something about the flexibility of the bakefile 
 system, and that's of interest to me.  And doing it could be a good way 
 to get acquainted with bakefile's internals.

To answer my own question, yes, DMC w/ gnu make works fine. Took me only about an hour of work (starting from knowing basically nothing about bakefile) to create a hybrid of the bakefile defs files, and to modify the wx bkl files accordingly. The new target is called dmars_gnu. My motivation for this is helping out the wxD project. In order to use wxD you have to build wxWidgets using dmc. It already takes too many steps to build and install wxD. Requiring one of those steps to be "download bakefile just so you can regenerate makefiles for the version of wx you want to build -- or buy the EUP for smake" is a little annoying. --bb
May 30 2007
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Yes, you're probably right.  Spending $15 for something I don't really 
 need is probably a better value proposition than spending 20 hours 
 trying to implement something I don't really need.

 But the question remains, is there anything preventing one from 
 implementing a dmars_gmake bakefile target?  It doesn't seem like it 
 should be that difficult to make a hybrid out of the mingw bakefiles 
 and dmars bakefiles, given familiarity with how bakefile works.

 You're right -- I'm probably not going to do it, but the answer to the 
 above question tells me something about the flexibility of the 
 bakefile system, and that's of interest to me.  And doing it could be 
 a good way to get acquainted with bakefile's internals.

To answer my own question, yes, DMC w/ gnu make works fine. Took me only about an hour of work (starting from knowing basically nothing about bakefile) to create a hybrid of the bakefile defs files, and to modify the wx bkl files accordingly. The new target is called dmars_gnu. My motivation for this is helping out the wxD project. In order to use wxD you have to build wxWidgets using dmc. It already takes too many steps to build and install wxD. Requiring one of those steps to be "download bakefile just so you can regenerate makefiles for the version of wx you want to build -- or buy the EUP for smake" is a little annoying.

Oh foo. Nevermind. It doesn't work. The libraries build and go to the right places but none of the samples will link properly. --bb
May 30 2007
parent reply Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.us> writes:
I still use the IDDE... and not the bakefiles...
wxWidgets 2.8.x compiles fine in the IDDE (if you want the files... )
samples build just file with the IDDE...

Jan



Bill Baxter wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Yes, you're probably right.  Spending $15 for something I don't 
 really need is probably a better value proposition than spending 20 
 hours trying to implement something I don't really need.

 But the question remains, is there anything preventing one from 
 implementing a dmars_gmake bakefile target?  It doesn't seem like it 
 should be that difficult to make a hybrid out of the mingw bakefiles 
 and dmars bakefiles, given familiarity with how bakefile works.

 You're right -- I'm probably not going to do it, but the answer to 
 the above question tells me something about the flexibility of the 
 bakefile system, and that's of interest to me.  And doing it could be 
 a good way to get acquainted with bakefile's internals.

To answer my own question, yes, DMC w/ gnu make works fine. Took me only about an hour of work (starting from knowing basically nothing about bakefile) to create a hybrid of the bakefile defs files, and to modify the wx bkl files accordingly. The new target is called dmars_gnu. My motivation for this is helping out the wxD project. In order to use wxD you have to build wxWidgets using dmc. It already takes too many steps to build and install wxD. Requiring one of those steps to be "download bakefile just so you can regenerate makefiles for the version of wx you want to build -- or buy the EUP for smake" is a little annoying.

Oh foo. Nevermind. It doesn't work. The libraries build and go to the right places but none of the samples will link properly. --bb

-- ManiaC++ Jan Knepper Smartsoft, LLC 88 Petersburg Road Petersburg, NJ 08270 U.S.A. www.smartsoft.us Phone : 609-628-4260 FAX : 609-628-1267 Y! : janknepper But as for me and my household, we shall use Mozilla... www.mozilla.org Get legal - Get OpenOffice.org www.openoffice.org
Jun 01 2007
parent Hakki Dogusan <dogusanh dynaset.org> writes:
Hi,

Jan Knepper wrote:
 I still use the IDDE... and not the bakefiles...
 wxWidgets 2.8.x compiles fine in the IDDE (if you want the files... )
 samples build just file with the IDDE...
 

Is x in 2.8.x apply to 2.8.8 or 2.8.9? If so, I want your files :) ps-1. Recently, I post a message about getting "internal error: eh 759" for building 2.8.8 via makefile.dms. ps-2. I tried to build 2.9.0 snapshot too. After some conversation at wxwindows list and compiling trial, Vadim Zeitlin (one of core developers of wx) wrote following: HD> > HD> There is no file named shldisp.h in dm. HD> > HD> > AFAICS all the rest is due to missing Platform SDK files/definitions. You HD> > can either make a patch adding everything needed to the __DMC__ section of HD> > include/wx/msw/missing.h or contribute the missing definitions to DMC HD> > itself (preferred). We definitely don't want to work around each of them HD> > individually in the wx sources, sorry. HD> HD> I understand. But, losting a free/good compiler option due to old PSDK HD> makes me sorry.. It's unfortunate but I don't see any other solution except using a newer PSDK. It shouldn't be that difficult... Again, if you prefer to reproduce all the missing stuff in __DMC__ section of missing.h -- why not. But IMO this would be a waste of [your] time.
 Jan
 
 

-- Regards, Hakki Dogusan
Oct 26 2008