Re: SableVM & Cygwin (was: Re: sablevm + windows)

2004-10-17 Thread Gerrit P. Haase
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote: Hi Gerrit, Hi Peter, I looked at the patches to screen what's really needed. * SableVM IIUC the "foreign" was used only because of libffi being 'included' into sources which, as discussed earlier, we can't accept. BTW. Some claim (I have not verified it) that you need

Re: SableVM & Cygwin (was: Re: sablevm + windows)

2004-10-16 Thread Grzegorz B. Prokopski
Hi Gerrit, Hi Peter, I looked at the patches to screen what's really needed. * SableVM IIUC the "foreign" was used only because of libffi being 'included' into sources which, as discussed earlier, we can't accept. BTW. Some claim (I have not verified it) that you need to set this flag in the t

Re: SableVM & Cygwin (was: Re: sablevm + windows)

2004-10-16 Thread Gerrit P. Haase
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote: Ready compiled SableVM binary and source package: http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/cygwin-1.5/sablevm/ The source package includes also the patch and uses a statically libffi, so it doesn't need a FFI DLL. Could you verify that this SableVM works as expected, please? *2*MB

Re: SableVM & Cygwin (was: Re: sablevm + windows)

2004-10-15 Thread Grzegorz B. Prokopski
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 11:57, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: > 1. > I have a stripped down standalone libffi package with a shared libffi > now. This version is based on the sources from the cygwin release of > gcc-3.3.3. You can take this package and maintain it, that means update > it when Cygwin GCC is

Re: LibFFI or LibVM? [was: Re: SableVM & Cygwin (was: Re: sablevm + windows)]

2004-10-15 Thread Tom Tromey
> ">" == Grzegorz B Prokopski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> They're also considering change of the license to a more >> restrictive one. False. Where did you hear this? Tom -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems

LibFFI or LibVM? [was: Re: SableVM & Cygwin (was: Re: sablevm + windows)]

2004-10-14 Thread Grzegorz B. Prokopski
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 15:25, Peter Lovell wrote: > Speaking only for myself, I believe that option (2) would be the > appropriate one. It might be nice to include it also back to gcc but I > suspect that sablevm developers might prefer to not have that > dependency. As for including libffi in S

Re: SableVM & Cygwin (was: Re: sablevm + windows)

2004-10-13 Thread Peter Lovell
Hi Gerrit, many thanks for this. Great ! Speaking only for myself, I believe that option (2) would be the appropriate one. It might be nice to include it also back to gcc but I suspect that sablevm developers might prefer to not have that dependency. I'll fetch your patches and test and let you

SableVM & Cygwin (was: Re: sablevm + windows)

2004-10-13 Thread Gerrit P. Haase
Hi Peter, coming back to this now. > I'm also willing to help port and maintain. Fine. I have to offer two possible scenarios. 1. I have a stripped down standalone libffi package with a shared libffi now. This version is based on the sources from the cygwin release of gcc-3.3.3. You can take