headers
Ged Murphy | 2 Dec 2009 15:54
Picon

rbuild msvc backend

I’ve gone down the path of virtually rewriting the msvc backend for rbuild. Our current implementation had completely outgrown its original design and was becoming very difficult to manage, as highlighted when I was adding support for VS 2010.

 

Anyway, whilst I’m doing this I think it’s a good time assess what we want to support. We currently support Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio .NET 2002 and Visual Studio.NET 2003. This is a waste of time IMO and only adds to the complexity of the module

I’m proposing to remove support for these 3 products unless anyone has any reasons against.

 

Ged.

 

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@...
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Permalink | Reply | 29 comments |
headers
Zachary Gorden | 2 Dec 2009 16:23
Picon

Re: rbuild msvc backend

Any reason to still keep 2005?

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Ged Murphy <gedmurphy-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

I’ve gone down the path of virtually rewriting the msvc backend for rbuild. Our current implementation had completely outgrown its original design and was becoming very difficult to manage, as highlighted when I was adding support for VS 2010.

 

Anyway, whilst I’m doing this I think it’s a good time assess what we want to support. We currently support Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio .NET 2002 and Visual Studio.NET 2003. This is a waste of time IMO and only adds to the complexity of the module

I’m proposing to remove support for these 3 products unless anyone has any reasons against.

 

Ged.

 


_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev-td3rRX5TIkhAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@...
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Permalink | Reply | 25 comments |
headers
Colin Finck | 2 Dec 2009 16:27
Picon
Favicon

Re: rbuild msvc backend

Ged Murphy wrote:
> We currently support Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio .NET 2002 and Visual
Studio.NET 2003.
> This is a waste of time IMO and only adds to the complexity of the module 

On top of this, the compilers of these three versions don't support variadic
macros, which we use pretty often in our headers. (see
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177415%28VS.80%29.aspx)
So in any case, it would be hard to ever get them to compile ReactOS code
properly.

You have my OK for removing the support.

Best regards,

Colin
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Sir Gallantmon | 2 Dec 2009 16:42
Picon
Gravatar

Re: rbuild msvc backend

I think we should still at least support the MSVC 2003 Toolkit. I use it for various stuff I have to compile with MSVC, because it is so much lighter and I can add what I need to it easily.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Colin Finck <mail-98udfXapLZ0SdPxGOP+pyQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Ged Murphy wrote:
> We currently support Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio .NET 2002 and Visual
Studio.NET 2003.
> This is a waste of time IMO and only adds to the complexity of the module

On top of this, the compilers of these three versions don't support variadic
macros, which we use pretty often in our headers. (see
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177415%28VS.80%29.aspx)
So in any case, it would be hard to ever get them to compile ReactOS code
properly.

You have my OK for removing the support.

Best regards,

Colin


_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev-td3rRX5TIkhAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@...
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ged Murphy | 2 Dec 2009 16:47
Picon

Re: rbuild msvc backend

I’d imagine a lot of larger corporations still use 2005 as their development environments are more tightly controlled.

I didn’t want to alienate these users.

 

Anyway, everything below msvc8 is now falling foul to my delete key.

I’m going to do the same with the entire codeblocks and devcpp backends.

Speak now or forever hold your peace.

 

 

From: ros-dev-bounces-td3rRX5TIkhAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces-td3rRX5TIkhAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Zachary Gorden
Sent: 02 December 2009 15:23
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] rbuild msvc backend

 

Any reason to still keep 2005?

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Ged Murphy <gedmurphy-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

I’ve gone down the path of virtually rewriting the msvc backend for rbuild. Our current implementation had completely outgrown its original design and was becoming very difficult to manage, as highlighted when I was adding support for VS 2010.

 

Anyway, whilst I’m doing this I think it’s a good time assess what we want to support. We currently support Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio .NET 2002 and Visual Studio.NET 2003. This is a waste of time IMO and only adds to the complexity of the module

I’m proposing to remove support for these 3 products unless anyone has any reasons against.

 

Ged.

 


_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev-td3rRX5TIkhAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

 

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@...
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Permalink | Reply | 23 comments |
headers
Ged Murphy | 2 Dec 2009 16:49
Picon

Re: rbuild msvc backend

We didn’t support the toolkit in the first place, only the ability to generate vcproj and sln files.

 

From: ros-dev-bounces-td3rRX5TIkhAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces-td3rRX5TIkhAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Sir Gallantmon
Sent: 02 December 2009 15:42
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] rbuild msvc backend

 

I think we should still at least support the MSVC 2003 Toolkit. I use it for various stuff I have to compile with MSVC, because it is so much lighter and I can add what I need to it easily.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Colin Finck <mail-98udfXapLZ0SdPxGOP+pyQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:

Ged Murphy wrote:
> We currently support Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio .NET 2002 and Visual
Studio.NET 2003.
> This is a waste of time IMO and only adds to the complexity of the module

On top of this, the compilers of these three versions don't support variadic
macros, which we use pretty often in our headers. (see
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177415%28VS.80%29.aspx)
So in any case, it would be hard to ever get them to compile ReactOS code
properly.

You have my OK for removing the support.

Best regards,

Colin



_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev-td3rRX5TIkhAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

 

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@...
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Maya Posch | 2 Dec 2009 16:51
Gravatar

Re: rbuild msvc backend

2005 is very commonly used. 2008 is quite poorly supported.

I can definitely understand removing support for 2003 and older as those 
are very much deprecated. My company uses 2005 and I know that many 
others do as well.

Maya

Zachary Gorden wrote:
> Any reason to still keep 2005?
> 
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Ged Murphy <gedmurphy@... 
> <mailto:gedmurphy@...>> wrote:
> 
>     I’ve gone down the path of virtually rewriting the msvc backend for
>     rbuild. Our current implementation had completely outgrown its
>     original design and was becoming very difficult to manage, as
>     highlighted when I was adding support for VS 2010.
> 
>      
> 
>     Anyway, whilst I’m doing this I think it’s a good time assess what
>     we want to support. We currently support Visual Studio 6, Visual
>     Studio .NET 2002 and Visual Studio.NET 2003. This is a waste of time
>     IMO and only adds to the complexity of the module
> 
>     I’m proposing to remove support for these 3 products unless anyone
>     has any reasons against.
> 
>      
> 
>     Ged.
> 
>      
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ros-dev mailing list
>     Ros-dev@... <mailto:Ros-dev@...>
>     http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev@...
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Colin Finck | 2 Dec 2009 17:19
Picon
Favicon

Re: rbuild msvc backend

Ged Murphy wrote:
> Anyway, everything below msvc8 is now falling foul to my delete key. 
> I’m going to do the same with the entire codeblocks and devcpp backends.

While you're in removal mood, you could as well delete the entire "Test"
module type along with the TestSupportCode class and everything referencing
to it :)

This module type requires a fundamental regression testing library by
Casper, which was never really used and has already been deleted long time
ago.
As all our regression tests are now based on the Wine regression testing
library, there is also no reason to ever revive Casper's version.

Best regards,

Colin
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Love Nystrom | 2 Dec 2009 18:23
Picon

Re: rbuild msvc backend

Ged Murphy wrote:
>
> I’d imagine a lot of larger corporations still use 2005 as their 
> development environments are more tightly controlled.
>
> I didn’t want to alienate these users.
>
> Anyway, everything below msvc8 is now falling foul to my delete key.
>
> I’m going to do the same with the entire codeblocks and devcpp backends.
>
> Speak now or forever hold your peace.
>
While I still use VC6 a lot, for various reasons, I don't use it for 
ReactOS.
However, I beg you to not remove the possibility to generate project and
workspace files for Code::Blocks.

A late-comer in the FOSS arena , I am just now discovering it's usefulness.
(I don't even have the newer IDE's you all seem to favor.)
If you haven't the time to maintain it, consider chucking it my way.
I'll do my best (after I get to understand it) to keep it in shape.

My argument for Codeblocks support is based on *source availability*.
While it may not have all the bells and whistles of full-blown commercial
products like VS2oo5/2oo8, it is open source, with has obvious benefits.
VS may be fancy, but we *do not have the source for it*.

I'm still trying to get to grips with a project as complex as ROS, and
I find the ability to work with it as a CB workspace/projects
superlatively useful, even if it loads a bit slowly.

ROS is an open source project, built with an open source compiler,
and removing support for a very good open source IDE would
be a tragic mistake IMHO.

Best Regards // Love
Permalink | Reply | 17 comments |
headers
Colin Finck | 2 Dec 2009 19:09
Picon
Favicon

Re: rbuild msvc backend

Love Nystrom wrote:
> I beg you to not remove the possibility to generate 
> project and workspace files for Code::Blocks.

From what I know, Code::Blocks can open .vcproj files generated by the MSVC
backend.
So no need to keep the additional Code::Blocks-specific backend.

Best regards,

Colin
Permalink | Reply | 16 comments |

Gmane