sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells
- Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:18:35 -0700
> > with ARCHS when unset in DETAILs be set to all ARCHS that we support.
>
> Good idea. Or perhaps we should reverse the ARCHS flag and have it specify
> the
> architectures this spell does /not/ work on, as that would probably be the
> smaller list.
>
Im going to try and formalize the semantics:
We'll have an ARCHS and a NO_ARCH variable (or whatever you want to
call them, i really dont care either way)
If neither of those are set then the spell is assumed to compile anywhere
if ARCHS is set and NO_ARCH is not set then the host architecture must
be in ARCHS, and thus everything is assumed to fail
if NO_ARCH is set and ARCH is not set the host architecture must not be
in the list, and thus everything else is assumed to work
if BOTH ARCHS and NO_ARCH are set, then we end up in a situation where
we've assumed anything not in either list will both succeed and fail,
so we must choose a default, in the name of consistancy I say we
assume that the spell will compile, which means that we ignore ARCHS
and just make sure that the host architecture is not in NO_ARCH.
-Andrew
--
__________________________________________________________________________
|Andrew D. Stitt | astitt at sourcemage.org |
|irc: afrayedknot | afrayedknot at t.armory.com |
|aim: thefrayedknot or iteratorplusplus | |
|Sorcery Team Lead, Porting Team Lead | |
|Grimoire Guru ham/smgl | ftp://t.armory.com |
|Author and Maintainer of Prometheus | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Robin Cook, 05/12/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, ruskie, 05/12/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Jason Flatt, 05/12/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Eric Sandall, 05/12/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/13/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Jason Flatt, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Eric Sandall, 05/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Seth Alan Woolley, 05/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Eric Sandall, 05/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Andrew, 05/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Arwed von Merkatz, 05/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Eric Sandall, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Eric Sandall, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Jason Flatt, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/13/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Eric Sandall, 05/12/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Arjan Bouter, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Paul Mahon, 05/13/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Andrew, 05/13/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Jose Bernardo Silva, 05/13/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Andrew, 05/13/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.