Re: Porting stlport for .NET 2005 64 bit compiler

On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 09:14 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Reading this, I was just wondering whether, in general,
it would make 
> sense for completely new platforms to not use our
STLport but rather the 
> standard libraries that come with the respective
compiler (if they are 
> complete enough, which I assume is the case by now). 
(Of course, that 
> would mean that we have to clean up STLport-specific
constructs in our 
> code base, but the more portable the better, anyway.)

I'd be in favour of this. Might need a bit of work, at the
moment the
configure flags "--without-stlport4" attempts to
build without stlport
and for gcc sticks some "bouncer" headers into the
build to bring the
gcc "ext" rope/hash_map/hash_set headers into the
"std" namespace to
attempt to do this. That sort of hack may or may not be
necessary for
other compilers, and it certainly needs freshening. If we
were to go for
it then we can just detect the platform in configure and
default one way
or the other.

So on what platforms are we chained to stlport for ABI
purposes, 
sparc 32bit solaris, intel 32bit windows and intel 32bit
linux ?
Is that it, or are we also stlport abi-ed for powerpc 32bit
linux ?

C.

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribeporting.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpporting.openoffice.org

Caolan McNamara wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 09:14 +0100, Stephan Bergmann
wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Reading this, I was just wondering whether, in
general, it would make 
>> sense for completely new platforms to not use our
STLport but rather the 
>> standard libraries that come with the respective
compiler (if they are 
>> complete enough, which I assume is the case by
now).  (Of course, that 
>> would mean that we have to clean up
STLport-specific constructs in our 
>> code base, but the more portable the better,
anyway.)
> 
> I'd be in favour of this. Might need a bit of work, at
the moment the
> configure flags "--without-stlport4" attempts
to build without stlport
> and for gcc sticks some "bouncer" headers
into the build to bring the
> gcc "ext" rope/hash_map/hash_set headers into
the "std" namespace to
> attempt to do this. That sort of hack may or may not be
necessary for
> other compilers, and it certainly needs freshening. If
we were to go for
> it then we can just detect the platform in configure
and default one way
> or the other.
> 
> So on what platforms are we chained to stlport for ABI
purposes, 
> sparc 32bit solaris, intel 32bit windows and intel
32bit linux ?

+ intel 32bit solaris

> Is that it, or are we also stlport abi-ed for powerpc
32bit linux ?

I guess those who drive a given port have some leeway in
defining the 
point in time from when on they want to stay compatible. 
(That is, I 
have no idea for any other platform than the four that Sun
Hamburg 
"cares for.")

-Stephan

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribeporting.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpporting.openoffice.org