[LLVMdev] Barking Up The Wrong Tree?

[Eric Mader]

Hi Reid,

Thanks for the reply. Comments inline below.

Regards,
Eric

On 9/29/14, 5:51 PM, Reid Kleckner wrote:
> I think any port will involve some changes, but it's really hard to 
> say which porting approach will be the least painless beforehand. 
> Aside from _MSC_VER incompatibilities messing up portability headers, 
> I think any changes you make to support clang on Windows you would 
> also have to do in order to use MSVC. MinGW is another possible 
> compiler, but then you're porting to gcc, which is a different amount 
> of work.
One of the things I'm hoping to gain from this approach is the ability 
to directly compile Objective-C code. I'll try that today and see what 
happens. I'm also hoping that Objective-C mixed in with C++ will work, 
but perhaps _MSC_VER will mean that won't work?
> I think you can turn of the _MSC_VER definition with -fmsc-version= or 
> some other flag, if you want to try that. I wouldn't recommend it, 
> because windows.h and other system headers usually need to have 
> _MSC_VER defined.
Yes, that makes sense.
> I saw your other thread about installation troubles, but it's hard to 
> debug remotely and I didn't have time today to respond. It sounds like 
> you got that worked out?
I got it worked out by copying the x86 toolset files by hand. I don't 
know why the installer, or install.bat couldn't write them - install.bat 
finished without any error messages.
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Eric Mader <emader at gmx.us 
> <mailto:emader at gmx.us>> wrote:
>
>     I'm trying to port a bunch of code from MacOS X to Windows. The
>     code is a mixture of C, C++11 and Objective-C. (Some of the C++
>     code has bits of Objective-C mixed in, just for spice ;-) Since it
>     builds on the Mac with clang, I thought that building on Windows
>     with clang would mean that I wouldn't have to make a bunch of
>     changes just related to a different compiler. For example, if I do
>     a straight port using Visual Studio, I have the replace all the
>     uses of blocks with either callbacks or lambdas.
>
>     Having spent a couple of hours on this, I'm now wondering if
>     perhaps it's not as straight-forward as I thought. For example,
>     the toolset.props file adds the -fmsc-version=1800 compiler flag,
>     which fools the conditional compilation in my header files into
>     acting just like they do with the Visual Studio compiler. Also,
>     I'm seeing an error where different header files have different
>     ideas about the type of t_size, but that my just be something I
>     have to fix.
>
>     So, bottom line. Is my assumption that using clang on Windows
>     would simplify the porting process a valid one?
>
>     Regards,
>     Eric Mader
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     LLVM Developers mailing list
>     LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
>     http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>     http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140930/7aae91e0/attachment.html>