OpenEuphoria

2. Re: Compiling RC2 on Windows: failed

• Posted by irv Dec 12, 2010
• 1200 views

I compile it about once a week, and the only time it has failed is when I have skipped several weeks and/or don't have an earlier version of eui bin available.

It isn't difficult.

This is on Linux. Windows generally has more problems compiling anything, I think.

4. Re: Compiling RC2 on Windows: failed

• Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Dec 12, 2010
• 1182 views

I build Euphoria almost everyday.

However, what you might not understand is that one cannot build Euphoria with only a C compiler and linker as your tool set. This is because a lot of Euphoria is written in Euphoria itself and only some portions of it are written in C.

In order to build Euphoria, one must have either a working Euphoria interpreter plus a C compiler and linker.

I assume you haven't downloaded the Windows installer, but only downloaded the pre-translated source files. Let us know if that's the case.

To something is "problematic" implies that there are many problems and that the problems are inherent in the object. Is strongly disagree the Euphoria v4 is "problematic". I'm sure there are bugs still existing, just as every complex piece of software has bugs in it. But to imply that these bugs are everywhere and that they prevent the successful use of the product (i.e. problematic) is a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

The only other person to mention problematic appears to be trying to use MS-DOS features from v3 that are no longer supported. This might be a problem for that person but it is not a problem with v4 itself.

What exactly are the many serious problems you are having with v4? We can't fix things if we don't know about them.

6. Re: Compiling RC2 on Windows: failed

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Dec 12, 2010
• 1145 views

If pretranslated sources are being used, then a working Euphoria interpreter should not be required. A C compiler and linker are suppose to be good enough.

8. Re: Compiling RC2 on Windows: failed

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Dec 12, 2010
• 1153 views

The pretranslated sources should include a suitable be_rev.c as well as coverage.h, so eui is still not required for this.

The GNU makefile still attempts to run eui but ignores the error that occurs when eui is not found. The watcom makefile should act the same way.

10. Re: Compiling RC2 on Windows: failed

• Posted by jeremy (admin) Dec 12, 2010
• 1179 views

Compiling on Windows works just fine w/o any Euphoria resource. The same w/all other platforms. The problem is in the RC2 zip I put up this morning I let a bug slip in. I did a silly thing. A few things have been fixed since RC2, nothing major or nothing we didn't know was indeeded fixed so I thought since the Windows .zip is bad, why put up a version I know bugs are in?

Well... From a fresh build (not an existing build like us devs are using) there is a bug in the Makefile.wat that was post RC2 release.

I hate to say this and I'm terribly sorry everyone has had problems w/the source only release for Windows, but I am putting up yet another Windows source release. It's all my fault.

Give me 15 minutes.

Jeremy

12. Re: Compiling RC2 on Windows: failed

• Posted by jeremy (admin) Dec 12, 2010
• 1149 views

I think I'm going to have to call in help w/the Watcom build file for no euphoria source builds. Is there a particular reason you need to install from the source file or just helping to test? If helping to test, great. This clearly needed some testing. I guess most people (all?) have just downloaded the installer.

We will get this fixed but I don't think it's going to be today. I have removed the source download from SF.net and from our downloads page until it is fixed. Sorry guys.

Jeremy

14. Re: Compiling RC2 on Windows: failed

• Posted by nanochip Dec 12, 2010
• 1138 views

Due to the innmediate responses from developers, this might be seen as a bit out-dated. Anyway, I think there are a couple of things that worth being clarified.

I already run configure with and without --without-euphoria option and the result is the same.

You are a lucky man.

What you might not understand is that if you (the developer) put an option --without-euphoria in configure.bat, that means without euphoria (interpreter). If that's not the case, please remove the option from configure help.

That's the case.

Another point you might not understand is that Euphoria 4.0 does not simply imply Euphoria. The latter evokes Robert Craig, while v. 4.0 implies developers other than the language creator, because those developers have taken a route that, for sure, Rogert Craigh would not.

So -and sorry if I'm being rude and no offense intended here-, when I talk about Euphoria being problematic I am not referring to the language itself. I do know Euphoria 4.0 is an ambitious project and appreciate the effort developers are doing, but you should admit that developers team works in such a disorganized way that ends in gross (to use your own words) contradictions like saying that Euphoria can't be compiled from sources without the interpreter, while other developers say all the contrary. I have even read posts from developers recognizing the fact that the team does work in a disorganized way.

Of course, since I'm not obliged to use Euphoria, someone could say "take it or leave it", but, for the same token, since none is obliged to develop Euphoria, I could say the same regarding development, which, of course, I'm not saying. I strongly desagree with someone who posted that currently, either Euphoria lacks of high-tech programmers or those programmers haven't the time necessary to develop the language. I do believe that some of the developers are high-tech programmers and I do know all of you are devoting a lot of time developing the language since it's enough to see the frequency with which patches are uploaded to SF.

As I stated in my previous post, I'm not referring to the same reasons invoked by the other user. But, in the event that that were the case, the fact that there is only one person on the forum mentioning Euphoria is problematic, does not mean he/she is the only one thinking that. I guess users base is a bit larger than just the few people posting here, and neither you nor me know what that wider base is thinking about Euphoria and not posting their thoughts on the forum.

For me not being able to compile Euphoria is a serious problem. Please note that this is not the first time I tried to do it. A few days ago, I submitted a bug request for the same reason. I downloaded eubins r4511 and source r4511 and failed. I remembered you pointing me going backwards to another revision and then upgrading to another... all of which had nothing to do with which I was informing because I was trying to compile from a clean installation.

I could add more examples like receiving error messages while running code with the interpreter, telling about asserts failing and pointing me to .c source files that have nothing to do with what I was doing.

If I don't submit every problem I encounter is because I use Euphoria neither for production nor have any project in mind using it, though I'd like to do it since I think Euphoria has a great potential. Just playing with it for fun but a fun that is resulting not so funny.

16. Re: Compiling RC2 on Windows: failed

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Dec 12, 2010
• 1141 views

After investigating the cause of the bug, we've discovered that it's a bug in the build process that --without-euphoria is essentially being ignored. This is only a problem for the Windows watcom build, because of its separate build system. (As far as we know, using MinGW to build the pretranslated sources should work, but no one has tested this, so it is possible we have more bugs lurking in that area as well.)

This bug is really hard to fix, and since the plan is to drop the current watcom build system and go with a unified one, we've decided that it's not worth the effort. So for windows, you will need to have a working Euphoria interpreter in order to compile Euphoria. This is a bug, but it will probably not be addressed until after 4.0 is released, unless one of the devs figures out a quick fix in the meantime or someone else fixes it and submits a patch.

That was a real problem with eubins that you found. It's been fixed now, in part thanks to your efforts.

You don't have to submit bug reports for every bug you find. Time is valuable and writing bug reports all the time is probably not the most exciting thing in the world.

Still, every bug report you find and submit helps. Even if we find that a bug is invalid or won't fix, having the ticket at least documents the situtation for the benefit of future users. And, most bug reports that are filed turn out to be real bugs that need to be fixed. I want to say on behalf of the developers that your efforts are important and appreciated.