Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Vincent, you're contradicting yourself over the course of this work.
> I thought at one point we got the wrapper to work on mingwce. I mean
> that's the reason we added those __MINGW32CE__ ifdefs in the first
> place. If they fail to work properly now, then we should fix
* Vincent Torri wrote on Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 08:33:42AM CEST:
> 1) remove the wrapper for cegcc and mingw32ce host (see the patch i sent)
> 2) remove the #ifndef __MINGW32CE__ the in windows wrapper, they are
> useless.
Thank you for explaining. I agree with your reasoning. Can you please
sen
* Vincent Torri wrote on Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 12:28:23AM CEST:
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Roumen Petrov wrote:
>> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>> But anyway, I don't see how the current git code generates C wrappers
>>> for wince.
>>
>> The host is usually xxx-mingw32ce and will match patterns like
>> {*-}
* Vincent Torri wrote on Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 08:43:39AM CEST:
> On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> Thank you for explaining. I agree with your reasoning. Can you please
>> send a patch that does the above, including a ChangeLog entry, to the
>> libtool-patches list? I will apply it t
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Vincent Torri wrote on Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 08:33:42AM CEST:
1) remove the wrapper for cegcc and mingw32ce host (see the patch i sent)
2) remove the #ifndef __MINGW32CE__ the in windows wrapper, they are
useless.
Thank you for explaining. I agre
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Vincent Torri wrote on Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 12:28:23AM CEST:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Roumen Petrov wrote:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
But anyway, I don't see how the current git code generates C wrappers
for wince.
The host is usually xxx-mingw32ce and
Hi Charles,
* Charles Wilson wrote on Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 04:20:12AM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > (On most w32 systems,
> > a script without an .exe extension would match such a rule as well, but
> > that's not the case for example on GNU/Linux -> w32 cross compiles and
> > with some weird
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Roumen Petrov wrote:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello Vincent, Bob,
[SNIP]
But anyway, I don't see how the current git code generates C wrappers
for wince.
The host is usually xxx-mingw32ce and will match patterns like {*-}*-mingw*,
i.e. it will generate wrappers as for
Hey,
* Vincent Torri wrote on Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 09:32:50PM CEST:
Does there exist a simulator for wince? Even if not now, can there
exist one at some point? In that case, we should strive to not make
things harder for that setup.
there is a simulator for Windows CE that can be run on l
Hello Vincent,
* Vincent Torri wrote on Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 09:32:50PM CEST:
>>
>> Does there exist a simulator for wince? Even if not now, can there
>> exist one at some point? In that case, we should strive to not make
>> things harder for that setup.
>
> there is a simulator for Windows CE t
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello Vincent, Bob,
[SNIP]
But anyway, I don't see how the current git code generates C wrappers
for wince.
The host is usually xxx-mingw32ce and will match patterns like
{*-}*-mingw*, i.e. it will generate wrappers as for mingw32.
But the C-wrapper-code of current
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> (On most w32 systems,
> a script without an .exe extension would match such a rule as well, but
> that's not the case for example on GNU/Linux -> w32 cross compiles and
> with some weird Cygwin mount options.)
...such as the default (only) mount mode under the upcoming cyg
Hello Vincent, Bob,
Bob already noted that the primary reason for any kind of wrapper, be
that a shell script or a compiled C program, for uninstalled programs
is so that uninstalled shared libraries are found when these programs
are executed.
Another reason is that, on some platforms, programs m
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Vincent Torri wrote:
So, the first line is the link of my real binary (evil_suite.exe), then the
compilation of the c wrapper is done and is failing. If I run make install,
evil_suite.exe is not installed.
This is expected be
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Vincent Torri wrote:
So, the first line is the link of my real binary (evil_suite.exe), then the
compilation of the c wrapper is done and is failing. If I run make install,
evil_suite.exe is not installed.
This is expected behavior since the Makefile uses the wrapper bina
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Vincent Torri wrote:
It does not sound like Windows CE offers enough functionality to make this
possible.
in addition, as it is cross compilation, the executables must be run on a
Windows CE device, so...
So what should be
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Vincent Torri wrote:
It does not sound like Windows CE offers enough functionality to make this
possible.
So what should be done to disable the execution of the c wrapper on that
platform only ?
Do you mean build, or do you mean execution? Something needs to be
writte
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
The purpose is to allow unininstalled (in build tree) executables and
libraries to be executed. Without this, it is difficult to debug and test
the uninstalled executables.
It does not sound like Windows CE offers enough functionality to make this
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Vincent Torri wrote:
what the precise purpose of the C wrapper ? Don't hesitate to give a long and
detailed answer.
The purpose is to allow unininstalled (in build tree) executables and
libraries to be executed. Without this, it is difficult to debug and
test the uninst
19 matches
Mail list logo
