nanogui: Pending patches/bug/requests ... list available on the FTP


Previous by date: 6 Jun 2005 23:37:45 +0100 Re: Alpha blending using Nano-X APIs, Greg Haerr
Next by date: 6 Jun 2005 23:37:45 +0100 Re: what is the difference between srvfunc.c and client.c?, Alex Holden
Previous in thread: 6 Jun 2005 23:37:45 +0100 Re: Pending patches/bug/requests ... list available on the FTP, Greg Haerr
Next in thread: 6 Jun 2005 23:37:45 +0100 Re: Pending patches/bug/requests ... list available on the FTP, Greg Haerr

Subject: RE: [nanogui] Pending patches/bug/requests ... list available on the FTP
From: "Andrew Hannam" ####@####.####
Date: 6 Jun 2005 23:37:45 +0100
Message-Id: <200506060429.j564TOCH038556@svr1.harvestgenius.com>

Generating .c files is a standard part of a lot of projects. It is nothing
unusual. For example, to make the C compiler itself .yacc and/or .flex files
are converted into .c files which are then compiled as part of the project.

To be afraid of generating .c files is to have little experience in any
project that parses or compiles other code as using these tools is the
standard way of describing and therefore generating language or general file
syntax.

The question is not so much as to whether the .c files should be generated
but rather using what tool they should be generated. Adding a generated .c
file means you are adding another tool (or language) to the project toolset.
This may cause problems on some platforms that don't support that tool.
For example - adding a perl script to a make system is a BIG deal because it
adds the perl runtime to the toolset (and perl can still be difficult to get
or make on some platforms).

In my opinion - the best way to do this is to add a small utility written in
C that performs the parsing required and outputs the required .c file. This
utility itself then gets compiled (and run) as part of the project build.

Andrew Hannam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Neundorf ####@####.#### 
Sent: Tuesday, 7 June 2005 2:00 AM
To: ####@####.####
Subject: Re: Aw: Re: [nanogui] Pending patches/bug/requests ... list
available on the FTP

On Monday 06 June 2005 14:54, ####@####.#### wrote:
> > I'm a bit worrying about such solution actually. Of course that's only
> > my feeling and others should also give their opinion on it.
> > The idea of the dynamically generated .c file is a bit frightening to
me,
> > wouldn't it becomes a bit harder to really see what is being compiled ?
>
> I agree. And it also makes the life a bit harder when you use tools like
> ClearCase...


Same here,

Alex


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####




-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.2 - Release Date: 4/06/2005



Previous by date: 6 Jun 2005 23:37:45 +0100 Re: Alpha blending using Nano-X APIs, Greg Haerr
Next by date: 6 Jun 2005 23:37:45 +0100 Re: what is the difference between srvfunc.c and client.c?, Alex Holden
Previous in thread: 6 Jun 2005 23:37:45 +0100 Re: Pending patches/bug/requests ... list available on the FTP, Greg Haerr
Next in thread: 6 Jun 2005 23:37:45 +0100 Re: Pending patches/bug/requests ... list available on the FTP, Greg Haerr


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.