Re: [Valgrind4win-developers] project status

[Vincent T. <vin...@gm...>]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Jiří Hruška <ji...@fu...> wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
>> the lead developper of mingw-w64 just told me that mingw-w64 might be
>> able to add specific options to startup/runtime-code, if it would be
>> profitable for valgrind4win venture
> One of the useful properties of Valgrind is that it is compiler
> agnostic, being able to work with binaries across used tools, vendor,
> source code availability etc. As long as the compiler/toolchain
> produces useful debugging info, everything is OK.
>
>> Also, it is a shame that there is no publicity for that project. You
>> should ask valgrind guys to provide a link in the main valgrind web
>> page, send mails to OSnews, phoronix, slashdot, etc... This could
>> attract people who are porting libraries to Windows (like gnome or kde
>> guys ?)
>> Also, imho, you should send mails to at least the mailing lists of :
>> MinGW, mingw-w64, cygwin, Wine and ReactOS about that project
> Yes, those kind of things would be nice, although I believe it would
> be good to have the project in a certain state before this level of
> publicity. If anyone hears about it, the first question would be
> "where can I download it", then "pah, it doesn't run even my simplest
> application". Having regular working builds, which are able to run all
> (most of) code on all supported platforms (x86, x64, wow64) with
> nullgrind would be good. More or less how Christoph described the
> "alpha phase" on this page:
> http://sourceforge.net/p/valgrind4win/wiki/ProjectStatus/
>
> This state is actually not so far as it might seem, IIRC. What's
> needed is a thorough review of syscall and kernel callback mechanisms
> on all the platforms and fixing any major bugs, which appear often
> during real world usage. That also means having a proper PDB support,
> which I have been working on.
>
> Also I've spoken with Julian Seward et. al. regarding the possible
> upstream merge and other stuff. In my opinion, the good time to
> discuss in detail whether we are doing all this right or wrong will be
> again in the aforementioned alpha state, when everything is roughly
> working and we can just refactor the individual parts if needed,
> retaining the functionality.

ok.

And what about the autotools stuff ?

Vincent Torri