Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: Vim 6.1 compiling

Expand Messages
  • David Sanders
    Thanks for the reply! I used the batch file and it worked. I am very new to all of this. I was unable to reproduce some of the errors I had been getting, I
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 27, 2002
      Thanks for the reply! I used the batch file and it worked. I am very new
      to all of this. I was unable to reproduce some of the errors I had been
      getting, I may have done something stupid.

      I tried executing by hand one of the test.in files that was failing - it
      worked fine. The problem is not a bug in vim but something else? I think
      some of my problems are the unix tools I'm running on winXP.

      Your batch files amaze me. I've been using a pc for a long time and never
      saw a batch file that was so complicated and accomplished so much!

      Thanks. David

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Walter Briscoe [mailto:wbriscoe@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 7:06 AM
      To: vim-dev@...
      Subject: Re: Vim 6.1 compiling

      In article <NLEBKBIKDNAAOCGHJKDMAELACBAA.david@...> of Fri,
      23 Aug 2002 08:48:53 in , David Sanders <david@...> writes
      >(cross posted on comp.editors)
      That's a clever trick! How do you achieve it?
      ->cut and paste

      I use W9X and the cygwin patch.exe. Given bugs in the "UNIX for Windows"
      diff.exe, I would not expect any patch.exe in it to work!

      I delayed responding to this until I downloaded the patches.
      ftp://ftp.vim.orq repeatedly disconnected me on Friday. This A.M., I had
      less of that problem and now have a set of files.

      >I am having several problems with Vim 6.1 compiling on WinXP with VC6:
      >1. I attempted to apply the patches 1-159, but they try to make
      >changes to files in the "runtime" directory which is not created by
      >the distribution zips vim61rt.zip and vim61src.zip. The patches
      >therefore fail.
      I would not be inclined to start from that point. You give partial URLs
      and require your reader to guess at their completion. I am not inclined
      to do. My suspicion is that you need an "extra" file rather than

      I have
      I downloaded ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim/patches/6.1.???
      You can optimise this by using the 1-100 archive in place of the
      individual patches.

      I unpacked the two archives. A vim61 folder was created. I copied the
      patches to that folder. I found that patch -p0 < 6.1.001 worked.
      I deleted 6.1.001. To avoid a precedence problem with < in command.com,
      I created p.bat to hold the following line:
      patch -p0 < %1
      I ran the following:
      lfnfor on % long filenames in for: not needed in XP or NTX %
      :: Apply each patch in turn - I had previously checked order of names.
      %comspec% /c for %%? in (6.1.???) do call p.bat %%? > t.t

      I checked t.t and found everything had worked.

      >2. I can compile the sources without the patches (console), but it
      >fails the "nmake test". (fatal error U1077: 'diff': return code '0x1')
      That would not surprise me. Porting from UNIX to windoze tends to be a
      nightmare. You may like to investigate specifics.

      >3. When I tell it to use Perl (I have version 5.8.0) and dynamic
      >loading - I get an error saying dynamic loading does not work in
      >versions prior to 5.6
      Chapter and verse?

      >4. I can use the unix tarballs instead of the zips, succesfully apply
      >patches 1-159, and compile with VC6. I get a warning during compile
      >(normal.c (4165) warning C4018: '>': signed/unsigned mismatch). It
      What command do you run to produce this diagnostic?
      I have just tried the following in vim61/src after patches 001 - 165
      nmake -f Make_ivc.mak -n cfg="Vim - Win32 Debug gvim OLE" | find
      "normal" > t.bat
      :: t fails because oledbg does not exist. So I do
      mkdir oledbg

      This time the compilation of normal.c was successful.

      What do I have to do to produce the diagnostic? VC Service Pack level?

      >also fails "nmake test" and will not allow dynamic loading of Perl
      >5.8.0. The text files have the wrong CR-LF convention.
      Chapter and Verse?

      >I can succesfully use a pre-compiled binary, but I would like to make
      >my own with patches applied and dynamic perl/python support built-in.
      >Any suggestions?
      I suggest you start by learning to build a patched vim without those
      exciting extras. Then continue. I have a background activity
      investigating the inability to build perl in a W9X environment and
      comparing behaviour in NTX with W9X.

      I use the enclosed script in W9X to download, build and load the
      installation folder for vim. It is dependent on non-standard tools
      bzip2, gzip, tar and sed. I use sed to map x.y in a tarball filename to
      an xy foldername. You could probably do the same in cmd.exe. I try not
      to whinge too much at Bram about such trivia.

      I do not build ANYTHING in NTX for use with W9X because W2K is
      insanitary with short filenames. For example, if a tarball contains a
      file foo.bar, W2K generates a file whose W9X long filename is FOO.BAR
      rather than foo.bar. (The W2K long filename is foo.bar.) This causes
      grief with tools which are sensitive to filename case.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.