[Module::Build] Re: CBuilder vs Windows update
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
kwilliams
|
From: Ken W. <ke...@ma...> - 2004-01-04 05:13:05
|
On Saturday, January 3, 2004, at 11:59 AM, Randy W. Sims wrote: > > I've got CBuilder compiling under Windows now; it's a bit hackish at > the moment, so I need to clean it up a bit. I should have had this > done sooner, but it was... not difficult, but.. a bit tedious for the > season, so I kept putting it off in favor of... lighter things. Anyway > I'll have a patch ready soon. Exactly the same reason I've been putting it off myself. =) > I was wondering though... How attached to the interface are you? > Couldn't we shorten the names to the obvious: > > preprocess() => converts .xs to .c > compile() => converts .c to .o > prelink() => generates export symbol file > link() => creates library or executable (depending on args) Yeah, sounds good to me. I'd had the library/executable split at the compilation stage (compile_library() vs. compile_executable()) though, is that wrong? When I do "gcc -o foo myprog.c" to create a 'foo' executable, what are the equivalent separate compile & link stages? Also, you think we should add XS capabilities to CBuilder? That would add a lot of extra "smarts" to the module that I'm not sure it really needs. I've got a new (well, actually about 10 years old) machine in my basement that I'm going to set up, among other things, as a project server for stuff like this. All my modules will have accessible CVS/Perforce/Subversion/whatever repositories on it so we can work a little more effectively on stuff like this. -Ken |