[Module::Build] Re: CBuilder vs Windows update

[Ken W. <ke...@ma...>]

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