World: r3wp
[!REBOL3 Priorities] Project priorities discussion
older | first |
BrianH 7-Dec-2009 [375x2] | Just being able to compile the host source with a C++ compiler would be sufficient - having declarations still work, for instance. The rest could be handled with shim code, basicaly what most of the host code is anyways. |
So far, that is - see recent blogs for details. | |
Robert 8-Dec-2009 [377] | I try all to keep away from C++ these days. It just gives to much hassles when going from one compiler to the next. |
Pekr 18-Dec-2009 [378x2] | Guys, there's a trouble with OS-X or so it seems. Any experienced OS-X coder to help? Message from Carl on R3 Chat: I must set OS X on the back burner... I've wasted far too much time on it. There are three choices on it: 1. find a tool that does what I need 2. make a tool that does what I need 3. join all the sources into one large .c compile Note that gcc -fvisibility=hidden does not work, nor does __private_extern__ wor k either. I've got to get on with other projects now. So, if you happen to find the soluti on, let me know. (PS, yes, using GCC > 4.0.) |
Some explanation: Back to OS X, the problem is that they're not really libs, they're .a's. This ev en appears to be the case when -dynamic-lib is used. I should mention that I've had -dynamic-lib built OS X libr3 and host working fo r several days. But, the libr3 isn't in the form I want, because it's not intern ally linked and resolved. Examining it with nm it looks like just a concat of .o files. Specifically, I want all internal symbols resolved, and I only want to export th e library interface. If OS X only builds libs (dynamic or otherwise) as concatenated .o files, that's a serious breach of coding ethics! There are two reasons: 1. it means I can link against the internal interfaces - a serious short circuit in code encapsulation rules. 2. it means I can discover the entire internal structure of any product... say I want to peek inside Photoshop to see how it does something. If I nm a lib that's been properly prepared, I should only see its API, nothing else. So far, this has not been possible on OS X. I suppose I could easily confirm this by nm'ing some of the various apps I have on OS X and checking if I can see their internals. Let's hope not. | |
BrianH 18-Dec-2009 [380] | Wow, that explains why Apple has to sue developers for using undocumented APIs instead of just not exporting them. |
Janko 18-Dec-2009 [381] | wow |
BrianH 18-Dec-2009 [382] | Well, I think I found the solution - it looks like Carl's assesmenmt of dylibs was wrong. Solutions posted in reply to him in chat. |
Maxim 18-Dec-2009 [383:last] | I've been under that impression myself... but haven't found an exact solution. |
older | first |