64-bit windows version?
simonmarhaskell at gmail.com
Fri Jun 22 09:45:51 EDT 2007
> On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 12:03 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> Ok, you clearly have looked at a lot more build systems than I have. So you
>> think there's a shift from autoconf-style "figure out the configuration by
>> running tests" to having a database of configuration settings for various
>> platforms? I'm surprised - I thought conventional wisdom was that you should
>> write your build system to be as independent as possible from the name of the
>> build platform, so that the system is less sensitive to changes in its
>> environment, and easier to port. I can see how wiring-in the parameters can
>> make the system more concrete, transparent and predictable, and perhaps that
>> makes it easier to manage. It's hard to predict whether this would improve our
>> situation without actually doing it, though - it all comes down to the details.
> This misses the point. The 'suck it and see' idea fails totally for
> cross-compilation. It's a special case.
> The right way to do things is to separate the steps:
> (a) make a configuration
> (b) select a configuration
Hmm, I don't see how the approach "fails totally" for cross-compilation. You
simply have to create the configuration on the target machine, which is exactly
what we do when we cross-compile GHC. Admittedly the process is a bit ad-hoc,
but it works.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users