| 1 |
Kito wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Nov 1, 2005, at 2:21 PM, Grobian wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I'm also happy to see this way as an option at least. I don't have |
| 6 |
>> good arguments yet, but I feel there's more in it somehow. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> On the other hand, (turning my head over to *our* glep42) it imposes a |
| 9 |
>> problem that needs to be addressable somehow by having the handles to |
| 10 |
>> dynamically do the right things depending on apple/gnu cc-suite, if |
| 11 |
>> you get what I mean. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Wouldn't extending tc_get* be sufficient? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Probably, but at the moment we already make the wrong assumption of doing: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
#ifdef __APPLE__ |
| 18 |
#include <malloc/malloc.h> |
| 19 |
#else |
| 20 |
#include <malloc.h> |
| 21 |
#endif |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
and then calling it a darwin patch. It's an apple patch basically, but |
| 24 |
I don't know the darwin counterpart, if it would exist. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
What I want to say, is that not only do we need to have the right |
| 27 |
handles to get the data we need, we also need the right methods (maybe |
| 28 |
even configure checks?) to do the right things depending on another |
| 29 |
compiler/linker. Upstream uses __APPLE__ as well. We can't expect |
| 30 |
upstream to have support for Gentoo's setup with standard |
| 31 |
compiler/linker, so if we would like to support that I think we should |
| 32 |
consider using conditionals again and/or maybe override some defines the |
| 33 |
hard way to get what we want. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Conclusion at my side of the story is that going the way of using (or |
| 36 |
immitating) Apple's build tools is the one of least resistance for now. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 41 |
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead |
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
Archives