1 Oct 2009 02:27
1 Oct 2009 06:51
RE: Texinfo manual
I'd be interested in additional opinions. My feeling is that more complete docoumentation, in a format other than header file comments, would be great. So that part should clearly be included. Probably that would mean that in the future the header file comments gradually morph to much shorter descriptions, with pointers to the documentation. I'm less convinced that converting some of the existing documentation, particularly on GC internals, from HTML to texinfo is a step forward. I suspect fewer people know how to maintain texinfo source than HTML, by a fair margin. And we clearly want to maintain only one. Hans > -----Original Message----- > From: gc-bounces@... > [mailto:gc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Richard O'Keefe > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 5:28 PM > To: Ludovic Courtès > Cc: gc@... > Subject: Re: [Gc] Texinfo manual > > > On Oct 1, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > A while back Marco Maggi aggregated various documentation bits in a > > single Texinfo manual: > ... > >Thus I think it would be nice it were integrated and became the > > > > canonical source of information for libgc users. > > Please.(Continue reading)
1 Oct 2009 07:48
Re: Texinfo manual
On Oct 1, 2009, at 5:51 PM, Boehm, Hans wrote: > I'm less convinced that converting some of the existing > documentation, particularly on GC internals, from HTML to texinfo is > a step forward. I suspect fewer people know how to maintain texinfo > source than HTML, by a fair margin. And we clearly want to maintain > only one. Whatever, let it be a *single* document. I want something I can print.
1 Oct 2009 08:29
Re[6]: : mingw32ce patch
Hi! "Vincent R." <forumer@...> wrote: > Ok so now here is the explanation about how to get stack address, on wince > 5.x, kernel is > a structure declared like this (example below is for arm but mips and x86 > are very similar) > > ***************************************************** > ARM ARCHITECTURE(nkarm.h) > ***************************************************** > #define PUserKData ((LPBYTE)0xFFFFC800) > typedef struct Thread THREAD; > typedef THREAD *PTHREAD; > > struct KDataStruct { > LPDWORD lpvTls; /* 0x000 Current thread local storage pointer > */ > ... > PPROCESS pCurPrc; /* 0x090 ptr to current PROCESS struct */ > PTHREAD pCurThd; /* 0x094 ptr to current THREAD struct */ > ... > }; /* KDataStruct */ > > /* High memory layout > * 0xFFFFC800 - KDataStruct > */ > > So on arm kernel is ALWAYS loaded at address 0xFFFFC800 and from it you > can get a pointer(Continue reading)
1 Oct 2009 08:54
Re: Texinfo manual
On 2009-10-01, Boehm, Hans wrote: > I'd be interested in additional opinions. SourceForge.net support MediaWiki and Trac Wiki [1]. Another option is to turn the header comments into doc-comments and run a documentation generator like Doxygen, gtk-doc, .... These options are not mutually exclusive, of course. [1] https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Hosted%20Apps
1 Oct 2009 08:51
Re: Maintainers attention: libatomic_ops
Am 30.09.2009, 19:32 Uhr, schrieb Petter Urkedal <urkedal@...>: > On 2009-09-29, Boehm, Hans wrote: >> I suspect we should standardize on particular versions of the autotools >> to minimize gratuitous and voluminous output from cvs diff. > > That sounds link a good thing for the CVS commits, while the build files > should still be fixed to work with any later version. That shouldn't be > hard, since IMHO Automake is pretty stable nowadays. > >> It looks like we're using automake 1.9.6 and autoconf 2.59? > > I believe that's the latest versions which are widely available. Not at all. Current versions are automake 1.10.2 and autoconf 2.64. I checked FreeBSD: automake 1.10.2 and autoconf 2.62; Ubuntu Hardy (the early 2008 long-term support release) already has the releases suggested below, current openSUSE has 1.10.1 and autoconf 2.63; Fedora 11 has autoconf 2.63 and automake 1.11. autoconf 2.59 is decrepit (released 2003), use 2.62 instead (18 months old), and automake 1.10 is also 3 years old; 1.10.1 around one and a half. -- -- Matthias Andree
1 Oct 2009 09:06
Re: Maintainers attention: libatomic_ops
On 2009-10-01, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 30.09.2009, 19:32 Uhr, schrieb Petter Urkedal <urkedal@...>: > > On 2009-09-29, Boehm, Hans wrote: > >> It looks like we're using automake 1.9.6 and autoconf 2.59? > > > > I believe that's the latest versions which are widely available. > > Not at all. Current versions are automake 1.10.2 and autoconf 2.64. I > checked FreeBSD: automake 1.10.2 and autoconf 2.62; Ubuntu Hardy (the > early 2008 long-term support release) already has the releases suggested > below, current openSUSE has 1.10.1 and autoconf 2.63; Fedora 11 has > autoconf 2.63 and automake 1.11. Do they not ship older versions of Automake? RHEL 4 and 5 ships Automake 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, and 1.9. Ubuntu 8.10 (yes, thats old) and Gentoo has a similar collections but include 1.10. My statement was about the intersection of versions across current distributions, but my samples are of course limited. OTOH, for Autoconf there may not be a greatest common version.
1 Oct 2009 09:37
Re[2]: : Maintainers attention: libatomic_ops
Hi! Petter Urkedal <urkedal@...> wrote: > On 2009-10-01, Matthias Andree wrote: > > Am 30.09.2009, 19:32 Uhr, schrieb Petter Urkedal <urkedal@...>: > > > On 2009-09-29, Boehm, Hans wrote: > > >> It looks like we're using automake 1.9.6 and autoconf 2.59? > > > > > > I believe that's the latest versions which are widely available. > > > > Not at all. Current versions are automake 1.10.2 and autoconf 2.64. I > > checked FreeBSD: automake 1.10.2 and autoconf 2.62; Ubuntu Hardy (the > > early 2008 long-term support release) already has the releases suggested > > below, current openSUSE has 1.10.1 and autoconf 2.63; Fedora 11 has > > autoconf 2.63 and automake 1.11. I've installed newest autoconf and automake. Now, autoreconf -vif (after deleting libtool.m4) fails with: configure.ac:397: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_ENABLE_SHARED If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow. See the Autoconf documentation. configure.ac:471: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL > > Do they not ship older versions of Automake? RHEL 4 and 5 ships > Automake 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, and 1.9. Ubuntu 8.10 (yes, thats old) and > Gentoo has a similar collections but include 1.10. My statement was > about the intersection of versions across current distributions, but my > samples are of course limited. OTOH, for Autoconf there may not be a > greatest common version.(Continue reading)
1 Oct 2009 09:38
Re: Texinfo manual
Hi, "Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm@...> writes: > I'm less convinced that converting some of the existing documentation, > particularly on GC internals, from HTML to texinfo is a step forward. > I suspect fewer people know how to maintain texinfo source than HTML, > by a fair margin. And we clearly want to maintain only one. Well, the decision is up to you. Texinfo definitely allows for more than raw HTML (several output formats, etc.) and good quality documents (consistent style, etc.). Its markup syntax is quite simple IMO, and well documented. FWIW I don’t like the Doxygen/GTK-doc approach, because I think we need more than just a list of assorted function prototypes and descriptions, as shown in the HTML doc currently available. Thanks, Ludo’.
1 Oct 2009 09:57
Re: Maintainers attention: libatomic_ops
Petter Urkedal píše v Čt 01. 10. 2009 v 09:06 +0200: > On 2009-10-01, Matthias Andree wrote: > > Am 30.09.2009, 19:32 Uhr, schrieb Petter Urkedal <urkedal@...>: > > > On 2009-09-29, Boehm, Hans wrote: > > >> It looks like we're using automake 1.9.6 and autoconf 2.59? > > > > > > I believe that's the latest versions which are widely available. > > > > Not at all. Current versions are automake 1.10.2 and autoconf 2.64. I > > checked FreeBSD: automake 1.10.2 and autoconf 2.62; Ubuntu Hardy (the > > early 2008 long-term support release) already has the releases suggested > > below, current openSUSE has 1.10.1 and autoconf 2.63; Fedora 11 has > > autoconf 2.63 and automake 1.11. > > Do they not ship older versions of Automake? RHEL 4 and 5 ships > Automake 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, and 1.9. Ubuntu 8.10 (yes, thats old) and Fedora ships Automake 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 and the latest 1.11. > Gentoo has a similar collections but include 1.10. My statement was > about the intersection of versions across current distributions, but my > samples are of course limited. OTOH, for Autoconf there may not be a > greatest common version. Dan
RSS Feed