dynoplibs in core or no?
mike.hind at gmail.com
Tue Jun 1 17:41:48 UTC 2010
We really need to consider what constitutes the "core" of parrot.
This is what is tested by make corevm/make coretest
Extensions are generally not considered part of the "core".
As regards, dynops and dynpmcs, I would probably not consider them part of
"core", but could go either way.
The changes, both with the ops massacre and opsc, have moved a lot of things
around and I think we seriously need to re-evaluate where we stand here.
In the future, with "lorito", we also need to look at maybe a further level,
"lorito base", "core" and the rest.
I leave this open for further discussion.
Cheers, Michael (mikehh)
On 1 June 2010 18:19, Christoph Otto (Excell Data Corporation) <
a-chotto at microsoft.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: parrot-dev-bounces at lists.parrot.org [mailto:parrot-dev-
> > bounces at lists.parrot.org] On Behalf Of Will Coleda
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 09:39
> > To: parrot-dev at lists.parrot.org
> > Subject: dynoplibs in core or no?
> > We've had some ping pong'ing code of late regarding the dynop
> > libraries as they've been moved in and out of 'make corevm'
> > If so, we should actually test all of them as part of core, and not
> > just the ones that happen to be in 'corevm' after ops massacre.
> > If not, we should not build them as part of core, and we'll need to
> > examine the various tests that are failing as part of 'make coretest'.
> > --
> > Will "Coke" Coleda
> Part of the reason they were taken out of coretest was because opsc (and
> therefore nqp) were required to build them. If we want be able to build
> them without building nqp (i.e. without adding nqp to corevm/coretest), the
> best approach would probably be to check the generated dynops C files and
> headers in to svn.
Michael H. Hind
Cell: +44 (0) 7877 224 745
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the parrot-dev