Still, I hate giving up...it really doesn't jive with my big-a** ego
You're not giving up, just look at is as starting a new project. This one goes on the backburner and when Neo 2.0 is released on intel you can go right back and start again.
Spending my time on 2.0 at this point is probably more worthwhile in the long term then a stopgap solution.
Still, I hate giving up...it really doesn't jive with my big-a** ego
Thoughts?
I think you'll be happy about this a few weeks doen the road. In the end, you're switching to something that will be much more useful.
As for the ego, you seem to know yourself well and that is always a good thing. Just take a drive, shoot some photos, have a bottle of wine and get it out of your system .
best wishes,
Oscar _________________ "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it would be a good idea!"
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Having spent nearly two months on this (!) I am now considering scrapping it as a viable experiment and moving onto the 2.0 migration. The 2.0 migration solves gcc4 compilation issues, so eventually all of this work would be useless anyway. If next May comes around, the Mactel release looms, and we can't get the 2.0 stuff stable, we can go to the fallback position of using gcc 3.3 to do an intermediate x86 compile (and I already have the set of patches to get gcc 3.3 for x86...mostly just Darwin-x86 patches).
Ed:
I know that this is not your forte, but it may be better to start working on an OOo 2.0 port as most of the OOo porting team have stopped working on 1.1.x and am now working on a viable OOo 2.0 for MacOSX X11 version. A lot of work is pending on the .1 release (actually 0.1 release) that will bring in OSX specific code.
OPENSTEP wrote:
Spending my time on 2.0 at this point is probably more worthwhile in the long term then a stopgap solution.
Still, I hate giving up...it really doesn't jive with my big-a** ego
At least you did not give up when you hit the first bump in the process.
And it is definately time to start working on Neo 2.0 (coming soon to a MacIntel near you.)
I looked at the issues and it appeared that all required patches except for the stport patch are in the OOo 2.0.1 code that I checked out this morning. I have committed the stlport patch (it is just the OOo 2.0 version) in the neojava/patches/openoffice directory so that the NeoOffice build has access to it.
So, if you want to try building with gcc 4, do a clean checkout of the NeoOffice code after tonight's 3 am Pacific time cvs sync and try building from scratch. Be sure to following the Tiger instructions in the README.txt file and note where you had to deviate from it so that I can update the instructions.
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:47 pm Post subject: Re: OOo 2 with gcc 4.0
pluby wrote:
(quote of Mox removed.)
I looked at the issues and it appeared that all required patches except for the stport patch are in the OOo 2.0.1 code that I checked out this morning. I have committed the stlport patch (it is just the OOo 2.0 version) in the neojava/patches/openoffice directory so that the NeoOffice build has access to it.
Patrick:
I have a question: Do you want only Mox to do the gcc4 build with me doing a gcc3.3 parallel build or do you want the both of us to try and see what fixes we come up with?
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:37 am Post subject: Re: OOo 2 with gcc 4.0
jjmckenzie51 wrote:
I have a question: Do you want only Mox to do the gcc4 build with me doing a gcc3.3 parallel build or do you want the both of us to try and see what fixes we come up with?
This is a good question and I could see value in either approach. My thinking is that getting working gcc4 build will help Ed be able to start building on Mactel. He has access to a Mactel machine and, IIRC, Apple only provides gcc4 for Mactel. So, if either of you can get the current NeoOffice code to build throught the OOo build on gcc4 without changing any of the configure flags, I would be estatic.
Once we get to that point, Ed can start working on the porting to Mactel. Note that although the OOo X11 has gotten OOo 2.0 running on Mactel, I don't know if the OOo assembler code is working properly or at all as I don't have a Mactel machine (I remember Kevin Hendricks spent a huge amount of time tracking down crashing bugs when he upgraded the assembler code to gcc3). I haven't seen any changes to the assembler code in the OOo CVS repository maybe there is a patch floating around outside of the CVS tree, but Pavel's blog seems to imply that the assembler porting work still needs to be done.
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:59 am Post subject: Re: OOo 2 with gcc 4.0
pluby wrote:
jjmckenzie51 wrote:
I have a question: Do you want only Mox to do the gcc4 build with me doing a gcc3.3 parallel build or do you want the both of us to try and see what fixes we come up with?
This is a good question and I could see value in either approach. My thinking is that getting working gcc4 build will help Ed be able to start building on Mactel. He has access to a Mactel machine and, IIRC, Apple only provides gcc4 for Mactel. So, if either of you can get the current NeoOffice code to build throught the OOo build on gcc4 without changing any of the configure flags, I would be estatic.
Ok. I have a .plan and I hope that Mox goes along with this. I will checkout Pavel Janik's latest code and attempt to build this. I should end up with a goooood build on gcc 4.0. I will then checkout your (Patrick's) latest patches and see if the patched OpenOffice code is in your patches.
I would like Mox to continue to attempt to build with your patches and see if we can get a good OpenOffice build. Pavel seems to have one or two patches that are not on OpenOffice's IssueZilla.
pluby wrote:
Once we get to that point, Ed can start working on the porting to Mactel. Note that although the OOo X11 has gotten OOo 2.0 running on Mactel, I don't know if the OOo assembler code is working properly or at all as I don't have a Mactel machine (I remember Kevin Hendricks spent a huge amount of time tracking down crashing bugs when he upgraded the assembler code to gcc3). I haven't seen any changes to the assembler code in the OOo CVS repository maybe there is a patch floating around outside of the CVS tree, but Pavel's blog seems to imply that the assembler porting work still needs to be done.
That should be a goal of the OpenOffice team as well. However, if we are there first.....
And I agree that RISC (PPC) assembler code will be vastly different than CISC (x86) assembler code. I come from the Z-80/8080/8086 part. I never learnt 68K/PPC assembler, although I could and then work through the code to see what should be/could be changed.
All times are GMT - 7 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Page 10 of 10
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
.
