[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Windows 64 port
From: |
AJMR |
Subject: |
Re: Windows 64 port |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:17:46 +0100 |
Hi everyone,
First of all, my gratitude for all the replies to the thread.
Secondly, it is not that I got scared (although, to be honest I feel
a bit overwhelmed for the depth of some details in this first contact).
However, most of time I can make nowadays is on weekends.
Thirdly, I have been reading any developers guides / instructions that
I could find and diving into the code. However, I am not sure whether
this is the correct approach. Any comments related to this topic will
be extra welcomed.
Finally, mainly to Eli and Fabrice, would it be OK if I contacted you
(via direct e-mail) in order to plan a more task-oriented roadmap?
======== This is probably quite off topic ======
Dear Dr. Richard Stallman,
First of all, many, many, many thanks for all your contributions
already made (and hopefully more to come). I tip my hat to you.
I also appreciate your concern about porting myself completely to
GNU/Linux and even becoming a 100% free software user. However, not
being free is a sacrifice I have chosen to make. Temporary. The target
is to be once again really free.
Meanwhile, I would love to add something to the GNU and free
software world. Of course, I would love even more to contribute with an
extremely useful application which would improve people's life.
Nevertheless, I thought about going step by step and join into an
already existing project. I even thought that a port would be well
defined and narrowly scoped so I could gain momentum.
Of course, I may be wrong.
With all that in mind, I thought about helping with the free software I
have used the most. I guessed that it would not be a piece of cake, but
nothing is ever easy.
================================================
Thanks,
Alfredo.
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:47:23 +0200
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
> > From: Fabrice Popineau <address@hidden>
> > Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:05:52 +0100
> > Cc: AJMR <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> >
> > Here is my Windows 64 bits patch. It is quite crude and only
> > attempts to make it possible to compile a 64bits emacs with the MS
> > Sdk.
>
> I have a few questions about the patch (below).
>
> > the heap allocation scheme should probably be reworked
>
> Can you tell which parts of the current scheme need to be reworked,
> and why do you think so?
>
> > === modified file 'lib/strftime.c'
> > --- lib/strftime.c 2011-03-31 04:24:03 +0000
> > +++ lib/strftime.c 2011-12-05 13:09:35 +0000
> > @@ -36,9 +36,13 @@
> > #include <ctype.h>
> > #include <time.h>
> >
> > +#ifdef _MSC_VER
> > +#define tzname _tzname
> > +#else
> > #if HAVE_TZNAME && !HAVE_DECL_TZNAME
> > extern char *tzname[];
> > #endif
> > +#endif
>
> This seems to be unrelated to 64-bit hosts. Why is it needed, when
> s/ms-w32.h has the same #define (which your patch #ifdef's away)?
> What is the issue here?
>
> > === modified file 'src/editfns.c'
> > --- src/editfns.c 2012-01-19 07:21:25 +0000
> > +++ src/editfns.c 2012-02-05 20:06:34 +0000
> > @@ -82,6 +82,8 @@
> >
> > #ifdef WINDOWSNT
> > extern Lisp_Object w32_get_internal_run_time (void);
> > +
> > +extern struct tm *localtime (const time_t *t);
> > #endif
>
> Why is this needed? It seems also unrelated to 64-bit Windows.
>
> > -internal_lisp_condition_case (volatile Lisp_Object var,
> > Lisp_Object bodyform, +internal_lisp_condition_case (/* volatile */
> > Lisp_Object var, Lisp_Object bodyform,
>
> Does MSVC have problems with the `volatile' qualifier?
>
> > --- src/frame.c 2012-01-19 07:21:25 +0000
> > +++ src/frame.c 2012-02-05 20:06:34 +0000
> > @@ -812,6 +812,7 @@
> > #ifdef HAVE_WINDOW_SYSTEM
> > if (track && FRAME_WINDOW_P (XFRAME (frame)))
> > {
> > + extern Lisp_Object x_get_focus_frame(struct frame *);
>
> This should go into w32term.h (it is already in xterm.h and nsterm.h).
>
> > --- src/m/amdx86-64.h 2012-01-19 07:21:25 +0000
> > +++ src/m/amdx86-64.h 2012-02-05 20:06:34 +0000
> > @@ -17,7 +17,8 @@
> > You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> > along with GNU Emacs. If not, see
> > <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. */
> > -#define BITS_PER_LONG 64
> > +#define BITS_PER_LONG 32
>
> Here Windows and Posix systems differ, so it's wrong to do this
> unconditionally. Does the 64-bit Windows define _LLP64 or some such
> somewhere on its headers? If so, perhaps we could condition the above
> on that macro, vs _LP64 on Posix hosts.
>
> > /* Define the type to use. */
> > -#define EMACS_INT long
> > -#define pI "l"
> > -#define EMACS_UINT unsigned long
> > +#define EMACS_INT __int64
> > +#define EMACS_UINT unsigned __int64
> > +#define pI "ll"
> > +#define VIRT_ADDR_VARIES
> > +#define DATA_START get_data_start ()
>
> Likewise here.
>
> Thanks.
>
- Re: Windows 64 port, (continued)
- Re: Windows 64 port, Aurélien, 2012/02/24
- Re: Windows 64 port, Fabrice Popineau, 2012/02/28
- Re: Windows 64 port, Paul Eggert, 2012/02/28
- Re: Windows 64 port, Fabrice Popineau, 2012/02/28
- Re: Windows 64 port, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port, Paul Eggert, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port, Paul Eggert, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/02/20
- Re: Windows 64 port,
AJMR <=
- Re: Windows 64 port, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/02/26
- Re: Windows 64 port, AJMR, 2012/02/27
- Re: Windows 64 port, Fabrice Popineau, 2012/02/28
- Re: Windows 64 port, Paul Eggert, 2012/02/29
Re: Windows 64 port, Richard Stallman, 2012/02/20