Re: MSVC build system

From: David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: MSVC build system
Date: 2007-08-27 18:30:22
Message-ID: 46D3183E.3000703@boreham.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Neil Conway wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 11:00 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> In the longer run I want to make the whole system more data driven, so
>> that it's comparatively easy for someone to add stuff.
>>
>
> I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I wonder if maintaining two
> separate build systems is the best approach in the long term. I think
> CMake[1] is an interesting alternative: it would allow us to generate
> both makefiles and MSVC .proj's from a single set of master build files.
>
To add my 2d worth to this: after working on a few very large
projects that built on both Unix and Windows my preference is
to use a single autotools-based build for both, with a script called cccl
that translates cc-style arguments for Microsoft's cl compiler/linker
tool chain (plus Cygwin for the command line utilities, gmake etc).
We have a locally-enhanced version of cccl that's a bit
more capable than the latest public version, I seem to remember.

I've used cmake but don't particularly like it because most everyone
has settled on autotools (for better or worse) as the way to build
big C/C++ projects.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-08-27 18:38:35 Re: MSVC build system
Previous Message Florian G. Pflug 2007-08-27 18:21:59 Re: [WIP PATCH] Lazily assign xids for toplevel Transactions