Re2: [GCC-XML] out of box install (winXP)

[Felix Ogg]

It is not clear from the documentation what to put into GCCXML_FLAGS for 
doing so. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Anyone?




I understand that the reasoning must have been: if you have more than one 
compiler installed on your system, the easiest way to determine which 
compiler library headers to include, is to use the name of the compiler as 
an argument to GCCXML. However, in the case where no compiler is installed 
on the system, this won't fly.

 It would be better to manually point GCCXML to a path from which it will 
include system headers, if available. The choice of vendor-specific 
simulation behaviour should be separated from that.


Felix Ogg










Brad King <brad.king at kitware.com>
30-05-2005 19:04
 
        To:     Felix Ogg/EHV/RESEARCH/PHILIPS at PHILIPS
        cc:     gccxml at gccxml.org
        Subject:        Re: [GCC-XML] out of box install (winXP)
        Classification: 




Felix Ogg wrote:
> I have installed gccxml on my machine for development of a ruby 
application
> that uses it. This all worked fine. Now that I test the application on 
> another (cleanly
> installed, fresh WindowsXP) machine, gccxml complains, it won't run.
> 
> There is no compiler on the fresh machine, but judging from the 
> documentation
> there is no need for that either. I browsed the source of gccxml a bit, 
> and I got
> the impression that there are dependencies on external compilers (like 
> MSdev Studio).
> 
> So, what can I do to minimally install/run gcc-xml on a machine without 
> a compiler?

GCC-XML simulates a compiler that is already installed on the system. 
In order to run without a compiler you need to install a compiler's 
system headers and set the GCCXML_FLAGS option by hand.  It is 
non-trivial.

-Brad

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/gccxml/attachments/20050531/09691b49/attachment-0001.html>