Smalltalk › Squeak › Squeak - Dev

[squeak-dev] Squeak VM & Cygwin?

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

10 messages Options

John Chludzinski

[squeak-dev] Squeak VM & Cygwin?

Does the Squeak VM use Cygwin (allowing for a common code base for both Linux/Unix/MacOS and WIndows)? If not, was this considered? ---John

Mariano Martinez Peck

Re: [squeak-dev] Squeak VM & Cygwin?

I think it uses MinGW, but maybe I am wrong.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:14 PM, John Chludzinski <[hidden email]> wrote:

Does the Squeak VM use Cygwin (allowing for a common code base for both Linux/Unix/MacOS and WIndows)? If not, was this considered? ---John

John Chludzinski

[squeak-dev] Re: Squeak VM & Cygwin?

In reply to this post by John Chludzinski

Wouldn't Cygwin allow for greater commonality (than MinGW) within the code base? ---John

> Mariano Martinez Peck marianopeck at gmail.com

> Wed Aug 26 20:18:43 UTC 2009

> I think it uses MinGW, but maybe I am wrong.

>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 4:14 PM, John Chludzinski <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Does the Squeak VM use Cygwin (allowing for a common code base for both Linux/Unix/MacOS and WIndows)? If not, was this considered? ---John

Yoshiki Ohshima-2

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Squeak VM & Cygwin?

At Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:28:46 -0400,
John Chludzinski wrote:
>
> Wouldn't Cygwin allow for greater commonality (than MinGW) within the code base? ---John

In the current code base, do you have any particular pieces in your
mind where switching to Cygwin would really help to get greater
commonality?

-- Yoshiki

John Chludzinski

[squeak-dev] Re: Squeak VM & Cygwin?

In reply to this post by John Chludzinski

> Yoshiki Ohshima yoshiki at vpri.org
> Wed Aug 26 20:32:00 UTC 2009

> At Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:28:46 -0400,

> John Chludzinski wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't Cygwin allow for greater commonality (than MinGW) within the code base? ---John
>
> In the current code base, do you have any particular pieces in your
> mind where switching to Cygwin would really help to get greater
> commonality?
>

> -- Yoshiki

No I don't. I've never looked thru the VM source for Win32 calls that could be POSIX calls. I just ported a POSIX app (OpenSolaris) to Windows (using Cygwin 1.7 beta) and was impressed with how remarkably painless that was. And being a Smalltalker/Squeaker, when possible, that question came to mind. ---John

Mariano Martinez Peck

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Squeak VM & Cygwin?

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:46 PM, John Chludzinski <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yoshiki Ohshima yoshiki at vpri.org
> Wed Aug 26 20:32:00 UTC 2009

>
> At Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:28:46 -0400,
> John Chludzinski wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't Cygwin allow for greater commonality (than MinGW) within the code base? ---John
>
> In the current code base, do you have any particular pieces in your
> mind where switching to Cygwin would really help to get greater
> commonality?
>
> -- Yoshiki

No I don't. I've never looked thru the VM source for Win32 calls that could be POSIX calls. I just ported a POSIX app (OpenSolaris) to Windows (using Cygwin 1.7 beta) and was impressed with how remarkably painless that was. And being a Smalltalker/Squeaker, when possible, that question came to mind. ---John

The thing is the license with Cygwin. You must attach cygwin dll with your program (SqueakVM in this case) :(
MinGW as the name says, it is smaller and in my case (I did this for OpenDBX library) it was much more faster than cygwin. Obviously that's if the app you want to compile doesn't use certain stuff MinGW can handle. And you don't depend in any external dll like cygwin.

Yoshiki Ohshima-2

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Squeak VM & Cygwin?

In reply to this post by John Chludzinski

At Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:46:39 -0400,
John Chludzinski wrote:

>
> > Yoshiki Ohshima yoshiki at vpri.org
> > Wed Aug 26 20:32:00 UTC 2009
> >
> > At Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:28:46 -0400,
> > John Chludzinski wrote:
> >
> >> Wouldn't Cygwin allow for greater commonality (than MinGW) within the code base? ---John
> >
> > In the current code base, do you have any particular pieces in your
> > mind where switching to Cygwin would really help to get greater
> > commonality?
> >
> > -- Yoshiki
>
> No I don't. I've never looked thru the VM source for Win32 calls that could be POSIX calls. I just ported a POSIX app
> (OpenSolaris) to Windows (using Cygwin 1.7 beta) and was impressed with how remarkably painless that was. And being a
> Smalltalker/Squeaker, when possible, that question came to mind. ---John

- Graphics. You don't expect the user to run Squeak in Cygwin X.
So, you do need a different code for it.

- File names should be "sane" to Window users. No /cygdrive/c/.

- Browser plugin needs very different mechanism.

- Memory allocation, if we try to use mmap() in cygwin to emulate
the desirable behavior, we probably end up with fighting the
incomplete emulation or incompatiblity more than just writing
well-defined primitives in Win32 calls.

- So is DLL loading.

- Network support may or may not be easier, but probably with the
same problem.

- FFI, ... etc., etc.

We don't hack the VM for platform specific reasons that often, and
when we do, it is usually about writing well-defined, isolated
functions. And having the common code means to test a change for a
platform is harder.

The bottom line:
Don't worry about it ^^;

-- Yoshiki

John Chludzinski

[squeak-dev] Re: Squeak VM & Cygwin?

In reply to this post by John Chludzinski

> Mariano Martinez Peck marianopeck at gmail.com wrote ...

> The thing is the license with Cygwin. You must attach cygwin dll with your
> program (SqueakVM in this case) :(
> MinGW as the name says, it is smaller and in my case (I did this for OpenDBX
> library) it was much more faster than cygwin. Obviously that's if the app
> you want to compile doesn't use certain stuff MinGW can handle. And you

> don't depend in any external dll like cygwin.

Performance is definitely a consideration (+ whatever licensing issues & including the cygwin.dll) . Do you know how badly (or how well) Cygwin performs v. MinGW? ---John

Mariano Martinez Peck

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Squeak VM & Cygwin?

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:17 PM, John Chludzinski <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Mariano Martinez Peck marianopeck at gmail.com wrote ...
>
> The thing is the license with Cygwin. You must attach cygwin dll with your
> program (SqueakVM in this case) :(
> MinGW as the name says, it is smaller and in my case (I did this for OpenDBX
> library) it was much more faster than cygwin. Obviously that's if the app
> you want to compile doesn't use certain stuff MinGW can handle. And you

> don't depend in any external dll like cygwin.

Performance is definitely a consideration (+ whatever licensing issues & including the cygwin.dll) . Do you know how badly (or how well) Cygwin performs v. MinGW? ---John

I don't know where can be numbers, but that time, I read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MinGW#Comparison_with_Cygwin

John Chludzinski

[squeak-dev] Re: Squeak VM & Cygwin?

In reply to this post by John Chludzinski

> The bottom line:
> Don't worry about it ^^;
>

> -- Yoshiki

First, THANKS for the input. Just trying to learn.

Second, it never hurts to do an "up periscope"!

Again - THANKS!!!

---John