Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] The 'next' branch

[Moeller]

On 22.02.2011 04:50, Don Ward wrote:
> Tom Rondeau wrote:
>> I would ask all of you who can to start either using or at least
>> testing out the 'next' branch now and provide us with feedback and bug
>> reports.

I installed the Cygwin 1.43 boost libraries, but:

checking for exit in -lboost_unit_test_framework... no
Could not link against libboost_unit_test_framework!

Some time ago I had Gnuradio running on Cygwin with XWindows,
Waterfall diagram and soundcard interface. USRP support failed to build.
I had problems building certain packages, but those I found precompiled on
http://sourceware.org/cygwinports/

> Compilation on Cygwin fails because there is no <complex.h> (#included by 
> volk_complex.h) in Cygwin.  In fact, there appears to be no support in the 
...
> Unless there is some reasonable way to avoid requiring complex.h (or to 
> avoid building volk), we will need to abandon GNU Radio under Cygwin.  (That 

Why do you need C complex types?
The br_complex is based on C++ complex:

typedef std::complex<float>                     gr_complex;
typedef std::complex<double>                    gr_complexd;

and volk complex too:
typedef std::complex<float>   lv_32fc_t;
typedef std::complex<double>  lv_64fc_t;

Most of the code is C++, only a few routines in C.
Is is worth maintaining different complex data types?

> wouldn't bother me too much, as long as it works under MinGW---especially if 
> support could be provided building with MSVC.)

Usually Cygwin is the direct way of porting Posix/Linux software to Windows.
In most cases, "./configure ; make" will do the job.
MinGW is less Posix compatible. And MSVC is not compatible at all.
The dual Posix/MSVC projects I checked out had very ugly code with lots of
preprocessor switches for all the Windows special treatments.
I think the Posix/Linux way is still recommended for Gnuradio,
especially for the new devices with an embedded PC component.