Menu
▾
▴
opencxx-users
|
From: Alexandre T. <kt...@fr...> - 2003-02-13 18:40:00
|
Hi, I would like to use OpenC++ on MacOs X. Compiling occ itself shouldn't =20 be a big issue (Darwin, the core Os is FreeBSD based) but the garbage =20 collector is Os and architecture dependent. So, my questions are: - Is there a Mosx port of GC? - If not, what issues should I be aware of if I need to port it myself? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------=20 - Alexandre Tolmos E-mail:=A0...@fr... ICQ: 92964905 ------------------------------------------------------------------------=20 - "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn." ------------------------------------------------------------------------=20 - |
|
From: Grzegorz J. <ja...@he...> - 2003-02-14 02:02:40
|
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Alexandre Tolmos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to use OpenC++ on MacOs X. Compiling occ itself shouldn't
> be a big issue (Darwin, the core Os is FreeBSD based) but the garbage
> collector is Os and architecture dependent. So, my questions are:
>
> - Is there a Mosx port of GC?
Hi,
It seems to me that recent versions of Hans Boehm's GC supports MacOS X.
They are available at
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/gc/gc_source/
Try to build with one of them and let me know if it works. MacOS X port
of OpenC++ would be very welcome.
Please work on the latest version of sources from CVS. Let me know if any
issues.
Regards
Grzegorz
PS: If this does not work, however, there is possibly a way to get rid of
GC at all with help of boost::shared_ptr<>.
##################################################################
# Grzegorz Jakacki Huada Electronic Design #
# Senior Engineer, CAD Dept. 1 Gaojiayuan, Chaoyang #
# tel. +86-10-64365577 x2074 Beijing 100015, China #
# Copyright (C) 2002 Grzegorz Jakacki, HED. All Rights Reserved. #
##################################################################
|
|
From: Alexandre T. <kt...@fr...> - 2003-02-14 10:55:07
|
Le vendredi, 14 f=E9v 2003, =E0 02:44 Europe/Paris, Grzegorz Jakacki a =20 =E9crit : > On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Alexandre Tolmos wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I would like to use OpenC++ on MacOs X. Compiling occ itself shouldn't >> be a big issue (Darwin, the core Os is FreeBSD based) but the garbage >> collector is Os and architecture dependent. So, my questions are: >> >> - Is there a Mosx port of GC? > > Hi, > > It seems to me that recent versions of Hans Boehm's GC supports MacOS =20 > X. > They are available at > > http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/gc/gc_source/ > > Try to build with one of them and let me know if it works. MacOS X port > of OpenC++ would be very welcome. > > Please work on the latest version of sources from CVS. Let me know if =20 > any > issues. > I downloaded version 6 but apparently the Mosx port lacks support for =20 threads and dynamic libraries... So I guess I'll have to discard Gc for =20 a while :( > PS: If this does not work, however, there is possibly a way to get rid = =20 > of > GC at all with help of boost::shared_ptr<>. Is there a #define somewhere to tell Occ not to use Gc? Thanks. Alex ------------------------------------------------------------------------=20 - Alexandre Tolmos E-mail:=A0...@fr... ICQ: 92964905 ------------------------------------------------------------------------=20 - "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn." ------------------------------------------------------------------------=20 - |
|
From: Shigeru C. <ch...@is...> - 2003-02-14 15:11:07
|
> > PS: If this does not work, however, there is possibly a way to get rid > > of GC at all with help of boost::shared_ptr<>. Memory management with smart pointers should be slower than with GC... > Is there a #define somewhere to tell Occ not to use Gc? Please define DONT_GC in types.h Chiba |
|
From: grigoriev <gri...@ar...> - 2003-02-17 12:22:39
|
Hello, I'm very interesting in Open C++, I'm working in Microsoft Visual C++ 7, and some compatibility problem there is: Does it fully compatible with Microsoft Visual C++ 7? Especially -With Attributing programming - new constructions added. Does it fully compatible with Microsoft Visual C++ 6? -Standard compatibility. "[]" the square brackets constructions possible to parse in Open C++ by -self meta programming? Can I parse and meta-use that new technique of expressing AOP ? AOP - is Some core technology of meta programming - subject of Open C++. Or can I just parse remaining code with attributes presented in it? Thanks you. Vladimir Grigoriev. |
|
From: Grzegorz J. <ja...@he...> - 2003-02-18 00:21:00
|
Hi Vladimir, On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, grigoriev wrote: > Hello, > > I'm very interesting in Open C++, Good! > I'm working in Microsoft Visual C++ 7, > > and some compatibility problem there is: > > Does it fully compatible with Microsoft Visual C++ 7? > Especially -With Attributing programming - new constructions added. I do not think so. Can you expand on how this attributing is supposed to work? Perhaps we can figure out how far from that the OpenC++ is. > Does it fully compatible with Microsoft Visual C++ 6? -Standard > compatibility. I do not use MSVC++, I do not know what this switch really does. Perhaps you want to elaborate on this or wait for somebody else to address this question. > "[]" the square brackets constructions possible to parse in Open C++ > by -self meta programming? It is not quite clear to me what you mean here. AFAIR OpenC++ parses square bracket initializers. What is "self meta programming"? > Can I parse and meta-use that new technique of expressing AOP ? > AOP - is Some core technology of meta programming - subject of Open C++. Could you explain what AOP is? > Or can I just parse remaining code with attributes presented in it? This question is not clear to me either. Best regards Grzegorz ################################################################## # Grzegorz Jakacki Huada Electronic Design # # Senior Engineer, CAD Dept. 1 Gaojiayuan, Chaoyang # # tel. +86-10-64365577 x2074 Beijing 100015, China # # Copyright (C) 2002 Grzegorz Jakacki, HED. All Rights Reserved. # ################################################################## |
|
From: grigoriev <gri...@ar...> - 2003-02-18 09:58:39
|
Hello, Problem - is in wide application of Open C++, and making this practical one. And making real programmers having true good tool.(!) this means that commercial applications often is developed by Microsoft Visual C++ 7 compatible tons of code, and not abstract ones. Asked about AOP: Aspect Oriented Programming - a kind of meta programming - (analog declaration modifiers of Open C++) is based on propose that to the base language constructions may be added some declararative type features (for characterizing base language constructions, to be coding units self) that can be used for productive realizing of many design patterns - and this is often most efficient way to deal with comprehensive metaprogramming. (Can not be realized by structures of usual language) In Open C++ this is done by declaration modifiers, and have simple structure (syntax) compared to Microsoft version of AOP. In MS it is possible to define a new ones -with arguments(!!!), some good syntax with structure of checking their type safe at compile time. Does it work so at open C++? Can be Open C++ extended or modified or make be more better and wide? And useful? There is declared ways? Or just "as is"? Can I make myself analog of [attribute() modifier] syntax to make parsed Microsoft code by Open C++ - that means self-metaprogramming in OpenC++. For: Again, For real work and application of meta programming It is better to make Open C++ compatible with libraries often used in industry. Does it hard to make Open C++ compatible with Microsoft version ? Instead of writing just generation of this code self. Parsing of existing code and than meta refactoring- is better!! -The purpose of my ask question. -- To make effective refactored existing code for really good use. - tons of goods.!!-The second real purpose. It is better to have similar coding in Meta Compiling and base language modifiers on OpenC++ is done without [], and extended syntax. (Can be looked better at C# documentation). Do you abstract programmers (for selves) or real - for practice ones ? finally. thanks you for you response. Vladimir Grigoriev. I'm working in Microsoft Visual C++ 7, > > > > and some compatibility problem there is: > > > > Does it fully compatible with Microsoft Visual C++ 7? > > Especially -With Attributing programming - new constructions added. > > I do not think so. Can you expand on how this attributing is supposed to > work? Perhaps we can figure out how far from that the OpenC++ is. > > > Does it fully compatible with Microsoft Visual C++ 6? -Standard > > compatibility. > > I do not use MSVC++, I do not know what this switch really does. Perhaps > you want to elaborate on this or wait for somebody else to address this > question. > > > "[]" the square brackets constructions possible to parse in Open C++ > > by -self meta programming? > > It is not quite clear to me what you mean here. AFAIR OpenC++ parses > square bracket initializers. What is "self meta programming"? > > > Can I parse and meta-use that new technique of expressing AOP ? > > AOP - is Some core technology of meta programming - subject of Open C++. > > Could you explain what AOP is? > > > Or can I just parse remaining code with attributes presented in it? > > This question is not clear to me either. > > Best regards > Grzegorz > > ################################################################## > # Grzegorz Jakacki Huada Electronic Design # > # Senior Engineer, CAD Dept. 1 Gaojiayuan, Chaoyang # > # tel. +86-10-64365577 x2074 Beijing 100015, China # > # Copyright (C) 2002 Grzegorz Jakacki, HED. All Rights Reserved. # > ################################################################## > > |
|
From: Grzegorz J. <ja...@he...> - 2003-02-18 11:56:24
|
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, grigoriev wrote: > Hello, > > Problem - is in wide application of Open C++, and making this practical > one. > And making real programmers having true good tool.(!) > this means that commercial applications often is developed by > Microsoft Visual C++ 7 compatible tons of code, and not abstract ones. > > Asked about AOP: > Aspect Oriented Programming - a kind of meta programming - > (analog declaration modifiers of Open C++) > is based on propose that to the base language constructions may be added > some declararative type > features (for characterizing base language constructions, to be coding units > self) > that can be used for productive realizing of many design patterns - > and this is often most efficient way to deal with comprehensive > metaprogramming. > (Can not be realized by structures of usual language) > In Open C++ this is done by declaration modifiers, and have simple structure > (syntax) compared to > Microsoft version of AOP. > In MS it is possible to define a new ones -with arguments(!!!), some good > syntax with structure of checking their type safe at compile time. > Does it work so at open C++? No, currently OpenC++ does not implement arguments to declaration modifiers. > Can be Open C++ extended or modified or make be more better and wide? And > useful? There is declared ways? Or just "as is"? OpenC++ can be extended to be whatever you want it to be, provided that you do it by yourself or find resources to do it. OpenC++ is maintained by a group of volunteers who are busy earning their salaries or university degrees and usually can spare only a little time for OpenC++. > > Can I make myself analog of [attribute() modifier] syntax to make parsed > Microsoft code by Open C++ - > that means self-metaprogramming in OpenC++. Technically it should be possible. However we do not want introduce changes that break backward compatibility (if the feature you are requesting has to do it, it perhaps should be activated only on user's demand). > For: > Again, > For real work and application of meta programming It is better to make Open > C++ > compatible with libraries often used in industry. > Does it hard to make Open C++ compatible with Microsoft version ? Probably not. Depends on what you mean by "hard". I could perhaps give more accurate answer if you supply e.g. examples of what you would like in OpenC++. > Instead of writing just generation of this code self. > Parsing of existing code and than meta refactoring- is better!! -The purpose > of my ask question. > > -- To make effective refactored existing code for really good use. - tons > of goods.!!-The second real purpose. > > It is better to have similar coding in Meta Compiling and base language > modifiers on OpenC++ is done without [], and extended syntax. > (Can be looked better at C# documentation). OpenC++ was implemented many years before C# was designed. > Do you abstract programmers (for selves) or real - for practice ones ? > finally. What is "abstract programmer"? Best regards Grzegorz > > > thanks you for you response. > > > Vladimir Grigoriev. > > I'm working in Microsoft Visual C++ 7, > > > > > > and some compatibility problem there is: > > > > > > Does it fully compatible with Microsoft Visual C++ 7? > > > Especially -With Attributing programming - new constructions added. > > > > I do not think so. Can you expand on how this attributing is supposed to > > work? Perhaps we can figure out how far from that the OpenC++ is. > > > > > Does it fully compatible with Microsoft Visual C++ 6? -Standard > > > compatibility. > > > > I do not use MSVC++, I do not know what this switch really does. Perhaps > > you want to elaborate on this or wait for somebody else to address this > > question. > > > > > "[]" the square brackets constructions possible to parse in Open C++ > > > by -self meta programming? > > > > It is not quite clear to me what you mean here. AFAIR OpenC++ parses > > square bracket initializers. What is "self meta programming"? > > > > > Can I parse and meta-use that new technique of expressing AOP ? > > > AOP - is Some core technology of meta programming - subject of Open C++. > > > > Could you explain what AOP is? > > > > > Or can I just parse remaining code with attributes presented in it? > > > > This question is not clear to me either. > > > > Best regards > > Grzegorz > > > > ################################################################## > > # Grzegorz Jakacki Huada Electronic Design # > > # Senior Engineer, CAD Dept. 1 Gaojiayuan, Chaoyang # > > # tel. +86-10-64365577 x2074 Beijing 100015, China # > > # Copyright (C) 2002 Grzegorz Jakacki, HED. All Rights Reserved. # > > ################################################################## > > > > > > > ################################################################## # Grzegorz Jakacki Huada Electronic Design # # Senior Engineer, CAD Dept. 1 Gaojiayuan, Chaoyang # # tel. +86-10-64365577 x2074 Beijing 100015, China # # Copyright (C) 2002 Grzegorz Jakacki, HED. All Rights Reserved. # ################################################################## |
|
From: Stefan R. <sr...@ma...> - 2003-02-14 11:42:51
|
Hello,
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 09:44:39AM +0800, Grzegorz Jakacki wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Alexandre Tolmos wrote:
> > I would like to use OpenC++ on MacOs X. Compiling occ itself shouldn't
> > be a big issue (Darwin, the core Os is FreeBSD based) but the garbage
> > collector is Os and architecture dependent. So, my questions are:
> >
> > - Is there a Mosx port of GC?
>
> It seems to me that recent versions of Hans Boehm's GC supports MacOS X.
[...]
> Try to build with one of them and let me know if it works. MacOS X port
> of OpenC++ would be very welcome.
JFTR: I have built OpenC++ with a different GC than the included
one. Here's what I did:
+ clear the "gc" subdirectory from the OpenC++ source tree
+ install the garbage collector into that directory
+ symlink all files from "gc/include" into "gc". OpenC++ wants
to say "#include <gc/gc.h>".
The versions I tried were GC 6.1 and OpenC++ 2.5.12; I still
have to try the CVS version.
The reason why I replaced the GC was because my program crashed
and I suspected a GC bug. Later, it turned out that the GC doesn't
trace STL containers for pointers. The solution so far is to
compile the GC with "-DREDIRECT_MALLOC=GC_malloc_uncollectable"
(overloading ::operator new didn't seem to do the trick).
Just in case someone else also stumbles across that problem...
> PS: If this does not work, however, there is possibly a way to get rid of
> GC at all with help of boost::shared_ptr<>.
Uhm. I doubt that. At least, this fundamental piece of Ptree
union {
struct {
Ptree* child;
Ptree* next;
} nonleaf;
struct {
char* position;
int length;
} leaf;
}data;
will not compile when replacing Ptree* by boost::shared_ptr<Ptree>.
So you'd have to rewrite quite a lot, I think.
Stefan
|
|
From: Alexandre T. <kt...@fr...> - 2003-02-15 18:17:50
|
Hugh > Hello, > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 09:44:39AM +0800, Grzegorz Jakacki wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Alexandre Tolmos wrote: >>> I would like to use OpenC++ on MacOs X. Compiling occ itself =20 >>> shouldn't >>> be a big issue (Darwin, the core Os is FreeBSD based) but the garbage >>> collector is Os and architecture dependent. So, my questions are: >>> >>> - Is there a Mosx port of GC? >> >> It seems to me that recent versions of Hans Boehm's GC supports MacOS = =20 >> X. > [...] >> Try to build with one of them and let me know if it works. MacOS X =20 >> port >> of OpenC++ would be very welcome. > > JFTR: I have built OpenC++ with a different GC than the included > one. Here's what I did: > + clear the "gc" subdirectory from the OpenC++ source tree > + install the garbage collector into that directory > + symlink all files from "gc/include" into "gc". OpenC++ wants > to say "#include <gc/gc.h>". > > The versions I tried were GC 6.1 and OpenC++ 2.5.12; I still > have to try the CVS version. I replaced the current Gc in the Cvs version with Gc 6.1. It compiles =20 without any problem but Occ itself does not compile at all, I get tons =20 of errors. The Gcc version shipped with the Mosx dev package is 3.1. Which version do you use to =20 compile Occ? Note: to compile Occ, I duplicated "Makefile.FreeBSD" in "src/Unix" and =20 used "make -f Makefile.Darwin all". Alex ------------------------------------------------------------------------=20 - Alexandre Tolmos E-mail:=A0...@fr... ICQ: 92964905 ------------------------------------------------------------------------=20 - "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn." ------------------------------------------------------------------------=20 - |
|
From: Stefan R. <sr...@ma...> - 2003-02-17 15:10:56
|
Hello, On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:13:35PM +0100, Alexandre Tolmos wrote: > >The versions I tried were GC 6.1 and OpenC++ 2.5.12; I still > >have to try the CVS version. > > I replaced the current Gc in the Cvs version with Gc 6.1. It compiles > without any problem but Occ itself does not compile at all, I get tons > of errors. The Gcc version > shipped with the Mosx dev package is 3.1. Which version do you use to > compile Occ? I use g++ 2.95.4. The CVS snapshot <http://opencxx.sourceforge.net/snapshots/opencxx-exp_branch-snap-2003-02-17.tgz> compiles out of the box; system is Debian 3.0 for x86. I just did "./configure && make". I get nasty warning messages from the GC, though, like these: Finalization cycle involving 833a140 Finalization cycle involving 8296b90 and these: GC_register_finalizer_ignore_self called with non-base-pointer 0x0 I wonder whether these are serious errors? occ seems to work so far. Stefan |
|
From: Grzegorz J. <ja...@he...> - 2003-02-18 01:31:31
|
Hi, On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Stefan Reuther wrote: > Hello, > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:13:35PM +0100, Alexandre Tolmos wrote: > > >The versions I tried were GC 6.1 and OpenC++ 2.5.12; I still > > >have to try the CVS version. > > > > I replaced the current Gc in the Cvs version with Gc 6.1. It compiles > > without any problem but Occ itself does not compile at all, I get tons > > of errors. The Gcc version > > shipped with the Mosx dev package is 3.1. Which version do you use to > > compile Occ? > > I use g++ 2.95.4. The CVS snapshot > <http://opencxx.sourceforge.net/snapshots/opencxx-exp_branch-snap-2003-02-17.tgz> > compiles out of the box; system is Debian 3.0 for x86. I just > did "./configure && make". > > I get nasty warning messages from the GC, though, like these: > Finalization cycle involving 833a140 > Finalization cycle involving 8296b90 > and these: > GC_register_finalizer_ignore_self called with non-base-pointer 0x0 > > I wonder whether these are serious errors? occ seems to work so > far. As far as I remember exp_templates use alpha version of GC (for no special reason; you should be able to switch to the latest stable release with no problems). The messages you see are to my understanding debugging messages, which are enabled in alpha, but disabled in stable version. If still in doubt, please subscribe to gc...@li... and ask the question there (I am not aware if this list is achived, possibly you can find out at http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/gc/). Best regards Grzegorz ################################################################## # Grzegorz Jakacki Huada Electronic Design # # Senior Engineer, CAD Dept. 1 Gaojiayuan, Chaoyang # # tel. +86-10-64365577 x2074 Beijing 100015, China # # Copyright (C) 2002 Grzegorz Jakacki, HED. All Rights Reserved. # ################################################################## |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X