[Gc] Re: Cmake and contribution model

Boehm, Hans hans.boehm at hp.com
Wed Feb 24 21:38:20 PST 2010

> From: Ivan Maidanski
> Hi!
> ludo at gnu.org (Ludovic CourtХs) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Ivan Maidanski <ivmai at mail.ru> writes:
> >
> > > I've just added CMakeList.txt, tests/CMakeList.txt and
> > > doc/Readme.cmake to the tree
> >
> > Does it mean that libgc now officially has 2 build systems?  (Which
> > also means that both of them are maintained.)
> This seems to be a question for Hans but...
> There is a lot of Makefile_XXX files in BDWGC - does this
> mean those target systems are officially supported and up-to-date?
> There is a demand for CMake build system in BDWGC (mostly for
> VC++). So let's add support for and maintain it (having
> several active contributors for it).
I think that's right.  We already have a bunch of different build systems.  A number of people, including me, still sometimes use the old Makefile.direct, even on Linux systems.  (It's a lot faster than a libtool-based build on the 133 MHz 32MB ARM I occasionally test on.)  So long as the build files involved are editable text files, and fairly transparent. I think it's not too hard to approximately maintain them.  And the ones that someone cares about should get fixed fairly quickly if we do break them.


More information about the Gc mailing list