FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

SVN contains too much *.exe
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Visual D
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
thornik



Joined: 18 Mar 2008
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 7:16 am    Post subject: SVN contains too much *.exe Reply with quote

Hello, guys!
I know this is not so important, but for my thin channel it's critical Smile Is it possible to clean-up (or change labels to be out of HEAD revision) for folder 'downloads'? It has 19Mb absolutely unnecessary executables of old revisions.

Thanks!

PS
Tried this add-in for my development - it's great! Thanks for all commiters!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sagitario



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 1:30 pm    Post subject: Re: SVN contains too much *.exe Reply with quote

thornik wrote:
Hello, guys!
I know this is not so important, but for my thin channel it's critical Smile Is it possible to clean-up (or change labels to be out of HEAD revision) for folder 'downloads'? It has 19Mb absolutely unnecessary executables of old revisions.


Anything but the trunk folder is unnecessary to build Visual D. The other folders just contain stuff for the web site and the downloads. So just limit your svn-URL to the trunk folder.

Quote:
Tried this add-in for my development - it's great! Thanks for all commiters!


Thanks for the feedback.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thornik



Joined: 18 Mar 2008
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 2:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, may be to avoid such confusions somebody will fix page http://www.dsource.org/projects/visuald/wiki/Build_from_source ? (as I guess, link http://svn.dsource.org/projects/visuald must be replaced with http://svn.dsource.org/projects/visuald/trunk - right?)

Oh, BTW one more fix (if I'm right), cite:

"Windows SDK 6.0A (included in VS2008) or SDK 7.1 (included in Windows 7.1 SDK)" - must be "Windows SDK 6.0A (included in VS2008) or SDK 7.1 (included in VS2010)" - ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sagitario



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've updated the link and the text.

Did you manage to build Visual D? My impression is that not a lot of people have tried, and that there might be some issues where the build description is not accurate enough.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thornik



Joined: 18 Mar 2008
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 2:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi, Rainer!
Not yet, I leaved it on weekend. I have a big plans on D and I want to help with VisualD tool too. Once I get problem I'll immediately report about it.

Have you some plan/schedule/"task list" for VisualD? (I mean not bug list)
I found interesting tool, which can be used as a bugtracker too: http://www.abstractspoon.com/tdl_resources.html
I found it more useful for development tasks/bugs than bugzilla or MS Project.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sagitario



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So far, I'm using the ticket system of dsource for external requests and reports, and a simple TODO file for my own ideas and observations. You can find it in the trunk directory.

This has been good enough to keep me going Wink If there were more developers, something more elaborate could help. I think using the ticket system at dsource seems natural.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thornik



Joined: 18 Mar 2008
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 4:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi, Rainer! I reached my comp, this is first result: Nothing compiles. Smile *no funny, ok*
My config: VS2010 (SDK 7.1 appr.), D 2.052; Windows 7 x86 (if important);

I modified Makefile accordingly to my env. After idl2d procedure I found files avoided conversion: `vsplatformuiuuids.h`, `activdbg.h`; But when I added 'em to idl2d.d, "make" gave this issue:

c:\dmd2\windows\bin\dmd.exe -of..\bin\Release\vsi.lib -lib -O -inline -release -d -L/DELEXECUTABLE -I.. @C:\Windows\TEMP\nm9E25.tmp
vsi\activdbg.d(40): { } expected following aggregate declaration
vsi\activdbg.d(40): no identifier for declarator ProcessDebugManager
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But very first issue was 'scope' parameter somewhere in IDLs, which is keyword in D - I fixed his generation in idl2d.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So... you have something to do! Smile

And last words related idl2d: don't you think it's too complicated? Theoretically it's just text conversion tool, Perl could eat it in second. But D procedure is also slow.
BTW, why we need to convert those IDLs? May be other D projects already have it?

regards...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thornik



Joined: 18 Mar 2008
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 8:03 am    Post subject: One more idea Reply with quote

Since those *.idl/*.h are static files, may be there is reason to generate *.d files from 'em and distribute TOGETHER with VisualD sources?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sagitario



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

thornik wrote:
After idl2d procedure I found files avoided conversion: `vsplatformuiuuids.h`, `activdbg.h`; But when I added 'em to idl2d.d, "make" gave this issue:

c:\dmd2\windows\bin\dmd.exe -of..\bin\Release\vsi.lib -lib -O -inline -release -d -L/DELEXECUTABLE -I.. @C:\Windows\TEMP\nm9E25.tmp
vsi\activdbg.d(40): { } expected following aggregate declaration
vsi\activdbg.d(40): no identifier for declarator ProcessDebugManager
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But very first issue was 'scope' parameter somewhere in IDLs, which is keyword in D - I fixed his generation in idl2d.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So... you have something to do! Smile


There are a lot of files not converted from the Windows SDK, because every file needs a tweak or two, so I stopped when my dependencies were resolved. If there is interest in special modules I can have a look.

Regarding vsplatformuiuuids.h: this file does not exist in the VS2008 SDK, but this is the SDK I normally use. So it would be bad to add it unconditionally. It's also currently unused, so not urgent to add, but also easy to translate. So some conditional inclusion would be ok, I think, anything with a wildcard should work, e.g. vsplatformuiuuids.*.

Did the compile fail due to some missing files? What do you mean by "SDK 7.1 appr."? It worked for me with the SDK v7.1.

Quote:
And last words related idl2d: don't you think it's too complicated? Theoretically it's just text conversion tool, Perl could eat it in second. But D procedure is also slow.


It might not be the fastest implementation, but I don't think a converter in any other language would be less complicated. You have to deal with a lot of different coding styles, macro magic and exceptions, while trying to keep the resulting code compilable and readable.

Quote:
BTW, why we need to convert those IDLs? May be other D projects already have it?


The conversion started on the VS SDK only, and I would be very surprised if you could find D bindings of these elsewhere. At first I used the windows import files from phobos, but these turned out to be very incomplete. So I started adding needed files from the Windows SDK.

There are other bindings to the win32 API, but they are hand-crafted, also incomplete and often out of date. With the converter, you get new declarations in new releases of the SDK almost for free.

Quote:
Since those *.idl/*.h are static files, may be there is reason to generate *.d files from 'em and distribute TOGETHER with VisualD sources?


The C-header files are distributed as part of the Windows SDK or Visual Studio and are not redistributable. So I doubt that I can distribute converted versions of these.

Rainer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thornik



Joined: 18 Mar 2008
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, Rainer, can you please have a look at mentioned files? If you join 'em, most probably VS2010 people will also enjoy development! :) (if you need missed files or even full *.h/*.idl package, just let me know)

To avoid "missed files" you can create separate file with file names, where unique VS2010 files will be commented out.

> Did the compile fail due to some missing files?

Yep, this is why I add 'em!

> VS2010 (SDK 7.1 appr.) - I use VS2010 and SDK 7.1 appropriately.

Your project can compile with 7.1, but did you tested it in clean VS2010? Mine configuration fails. :(

> The C-header files are distributed as part of the Windows SDK...

Yes, with PUBLICLY available SDK. That's first. Second, we don't distribute MS headers, we distribute OUR OWN files - result of our work. You have full right on 'em. They can significantly reduce compile time and errors during conversion.

PS
Still cannot catch why people sit on VS2008, while there is 2010??
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sagitario



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thornik wrote:
> VS2010 (SDK 7.1 appr.) - I use VS2010 and SDK 7.1 appropriately.

Your project can compile with 7.1, but did you tested it in clean VS2010? Mine configuration fails. Sad


I have the VS2010 shell and the Windows SDK, but the build process should not depend on the VS Installation, only on the installed SDK folders.

I don't see references to the mentioned files, but it's some time since I last run this part of the build, so I will retry it later...

Quote:
> The C-header files are distributed as part of the Windows SDK...

Yes, with PUBLICLY available SDK. That's first. Second, we don't distribute MS headers, we distribute OUR OWN files - result of our work. You have full right on 'em.


Sorry, but this is not my understanding. Publicly available does not mean redistributable. I doubt (and hope) that running a file through a converter does not transfer intellectual properties.

Quote:
PS
Still cannot catch why people sit on VS2008, while there is 2010??


I don't see a lot of benefit from updating either. I also have some large projects that are troublesome to update, with all their dependencies and installation requirements. I even have VS.NET running because of that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thornik



Joined: 18 Mar 2008
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My env is VS2010(Ult) + SP1. Probably it's different from just VS2010 shell + SDK. Anyway, these files were required by nmake, be sure. If you will successfuly convert 'em (please), I can test it on my system and everybody else will enjoy _at_least_normal_compilation_.

Related IP... Are you scared to be jailed for 15 years with no right of appeal?? Smile))))) Man, just let people to download it. _IF_ MS decide you're biggest pirate Smile they will inform you immediately. Otherwise you hide this conversion headache for all (three for a whole world) VS2010 developers who will decide to help a project. And hell... if you're so respectable, ask Microsoft! Smile Sure, they don't give a f** what marginals like us converted there. Smile

Benefit for moving to VS2010 is quite simple: it's the first WPF version of VS, which will be improved later - forget about VS2008, it's history with all its bugs. Moreover: VS2010 changed (and as they say SIMPLIFIED) the API for add-ins, so if you wanna attract more developers, you HAVE to support VS2010. MS is the world where nobody ask you "have you reason?" - they say to you which reason you have. Smile Pity, but true. You decide!

Anyway, will wait for your news! I wanna improve definitely the best IDE for D, it's the one chance for D to be successful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sagitario



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 5:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thornik wrote:
My env is VS2010(Ult) + SP1. Probably it's different from just VS2010 shell + SDK. Anyway, these files were required by nmake, be sure. If you will successfuly convert 'em (please), I can test it on my system and everybody else will enjoy _at_least_normal_compilation_.


I have installed a trial of VS2010, but that only installed the Windows SDK v7.0A. I then endured the SP1 update, but no change. Finally, I found out that the problem is not the Windows SDK, but the Visual Studio SDK. It seems I had an older version for VS2010, maybe even a prerelease. The fact that you can't install the new one on XP didn't really help, though.

I have fixed the issues with current VS2010 SDK. You can get the latest sources from SVN, but building needs dmd 2.053 now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thornik



Joined: 18 Mar 2008
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi, Rainer!
It's good we shift forward (conversion passed well, thanks!), but I'm stuck on next step. I got dmd 2.053, latest sources and modified:

a) File c:\PRG\D\VisualD\Makefile as this:

Code:
DMD2 = c:\dmd2\windows\bin\dmd.exe
COFFIMPLIB = c:\dmd2\windows\bin\coffimplib.exe
WINSDK = $(PROGRAMFILES)\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v7.1
VSISDK = $(PROGRAMFILES)\Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 SDK


b) File c:\PRG\D\VisualD\visuald\Makefile as this:

Code:
DMD = c:\dmd2\windows\bin\dmd.exe
CV2PDB = c:\Program Files\VisualD\cv2pdb\cv2pdb.exe
VSISDK = c:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 SDK


But following lines get me confused - I couldn't find what and where is this:

Code:
CTC = "$(VSISDK)\VisualStudioIntegration\Tools\Bin\CTC.exe"
REGIT = c:\l\vs9SDK\VisualStudioIntegration\Tools\Bin\RegIt.exe


Well, I know it's wrong, but I leaved 'em as is. Magic 'nmake.exe' and... screen filled with this:

for %f in (lib\kernel32.lib lib\user32.lib lib\winspool.lib lib\advapi32.lib lib\comdlg32.lib lib\gdi32.lib lib\ole32.lib lib\rpcrt
4.lib lib\shell32.lib lib\winmm.lib lib\wsock32.lib lib\comctl32.lib lib\oleaut32.lib lib\ws2_32.lib lib\odbc32.lib) do @( c:\dmd2\windows\
bin\coffimplib.exe "C:\Program Files\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v7.1\%f" %f )
cd visuald && nmake "DMD=c:\dmd2\windows\bin\dmd.exe" "VSISDK=C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 SDK" "CV2PDB=C:\Program
Files\VisualD\cv2pdb\cv2pdb.exe" release

Microsoft (R) Program Maintenance Utility Version 10.00.30319.01
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

NMAKE : fatal error U1073: don't know how to make '../stdext/parallelism.d'
Stop.


I guess what is parallelism.d (c:\dmd2\src\phobos\std\parallelism.d - right?). I tried to copy it into c:\PRG\D\VisualD\visuald and modify c:\PRG\D\VisualD\visuald\Makefile accordingly:

Code:
SRC = workaround.d parallelism.d

instead of
Code:
SRC = workaround.d ../stdext/parallelism.d


...and this trick just give an expected error

""C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 SDK\VisualStudioIntegration\Tools\Bin\CTC.exe"" resources\pkgcmd.ctc resources\pkgcm
d.cto -Ccl -I.
'"C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 SDK\VisualStudioIntegration\Tools\Bin\CTC.exe"' is not recognized as an internal or external
command,
operable program or batch file.
NMAKE : fatal error U1077: '""C:\Program' : return code '0x1'
Stop.


If you use no quotes ...
Code:
CTC = $(VSISDK)\VisualStudioIntegration\Tools\Bin\CTC.exe

... error is a bit different:

"C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 SDK\VisualStudioIntegration\Tools\Bin\CTC.exe" resources\pkgcmd.ctc resources\pkgcmd.
cto -Ccl -I.
'C:\Program' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.


Here I stopped, since my knowledge of archaic 'make' is limited.
Rainer, have you ability to install (may be in VMWare?) a clean system with VS2010 and dmd only? Anyway, I'm ready to continue our "remote debugging" Smile
Wait for news!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sagitario



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 4:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

sorry, I removed stdext/parallelism.d just before committing, because it is now in dmd 2.053, and forgot about updating the makefile.

Once you have managed to get the conversion done (as you have), you can continue with the Visual D projects inside Visual Studio. I have committed a solution visuald_vs10.sln that should work.

That leaves the problem with CTC (RegIt is not really needed). This tool has been removed from the SDK (sigh). It seems Microsoft makes it more and more difficult not to use C# for extension development.

I have committed the result of that compilation step (pkgcmd.cto), so as long as the ctc is not updated, making the cto-file newer should avoid executing the command.

Even if the build succeeds, there is the trouble of running the version under development in a different "experimental" instance of Visual Studio. This has changed in VS2010 (it rebuilds the registry on every start, see http://blogs.msdn.com/b/aaronmar/archive/2009/06/05/pkgdef-and-the-experimental-instance-in-vs-2010.aspx ), and I have not yet found a sensible way to do it. Visual D shows up in the extension manager, but the registry entries from the pkgdef file are never applied.
In case you want to give it a try, I've committed my attempts to trunk/nsis/Extensions (you'll have to update the path to the dll).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Visual D All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group