* Re: Re[2]: visual studio compatibility
@ 2001-05-14 17:49 Mike Stump
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mike Stump @ 2001-05-14 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dan, jbuck; +Cc: decraft, fjh, gcc, reedkotler
> From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.COM>
> To: dan@www.cgsoftware.com (Daniel Berlin)
> Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 15:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
> But yes, any implementation that is fully binary compatible with
> MSVC has to violate a patent.
If someone cared (I don't), someone could ask Microsoft to license the
patent to the FSF, so that they (the FSF) can relicense to the rest of
the world.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Re[2]: visual studio compatibility
2001-05-14 15:32 ` Joe Buck
@ 2001-05-17 11:24 ` Francois Gouget
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Francois Gouget @ 2001-05-17 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Buck
Cc: Daniel Berlin, Reed Kotler,
Павел
Кузнецов,
Fergus Henderson, gcc
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Joe Buck wrote:
> [ reverse engineering msvc ]
>
> > Object layout we can't do anyway. They've patented most of it (You can
> > therefore find most of it documented in the patents), and as they
> > get more desperate to stop open source software, i'd think we don't want
> > to be anywhere near the cross-hairs.
>
> It might be possible to do a partial job without violating their patents;
> there's nothing special in the case of single inheritance. But yes, any
> implementation that is fully binary compatible with MSVC has to violate
> a patent.
Isn't the single inheritance case already done? There's an email on
'gcc-bugs' with the title 'COM binary compatibility' that says the gcc
3.0 ABI will be compatible with COM objects out of the box (no more
com_interface attribute). Since COM objects are nothing more than VC++
classes with single inheritance this seems to imply that the single
inheritance case is already solved.
I guess you were refering to US5297284 for the multiple inheritance
case. AFAIU it does specify optimisations for the virtual table layout
and the handling of the this pointer. How does the new gcc 3.0 ABI deal
with it? It does things like VC++ for the single inheritance case but
goes another way to deal with multiple inheritance?
(In the Wine project we side-step the whole issue by not using the
compiler to do the COM object layout)
--
Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/
f u kn rd ts, ur wy 2 gky 4 ur wn gd.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Re[2]: visual studio compatibility
2001-05-14 15:06 ` Daniel Berlin
@ 2001-05-14 15:32 ` Joe Buck
2001-05-17 11:24 ` Francois Gouget
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joe Buck @ 2001-05-14 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Berlin
Cc: Reed Kotler,
Павел
Кузнецов,
Fergus Henderson, gcc
[ reverse engineering msvc ]
> Object layout we can't do anyway. They've patented most of it (You can
> therefore find most of it documented in the patents), and as they
> get more desperate to stop open source software, i'd think we don't want
> to be anywhere near the cross-hairs.
It might be possible to do a partial job without violating their patents;
there's nothing special in the case of single inheritance. But yes, any
implementation that is fully binary compatible with MSVC has to violate
a patent.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Re[2]: visual studio compatibility
2001-05-14 11:34 ` Reed Kotler
@ 2001-05-14 15:06 ` Daniel Berlin
2001-05-14 15:32 ` Joe Buck
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Berlin @ 2001-05-14 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Reed Kotler
Cc: Павел
Кузнецов,
Fergus Henderson, gcc
It took me around a week to reverse engineer this once. It's pretty simple
to do, and a pretty frickin obvious mangling format.
Object layout we can't do anyway. They've patented most of it (You can
therefore find most of it documented in the patents), and as they
get more desperate to stop open source software, i'd think we don't want
to be anywhere near the cross-hairs.
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Reed Kotler wrote:
> How do you intend to discover the microsoft name mangling and
> object layout for C++?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pavel Kuznetsov" <decraft@bigfoot.com>
> To: "Fergus Henderson" <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>
> Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 2:42 AM
> Subject: Re[2]: visual studio compatibility
>
>
> > FH> On 13-May-2001, Pavel Kuznetsov <decraft@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > >> So, me and my father are working on some kind of gcc binary
> compatibility
> > >> layer with visual studio. Among other this includes
> > >> - structures packing
> > >> - debug information format
> > >> - etc.
> >
> > FH> I presume you're talking just about compatibility for C, not for C++?
> >
> > Nope, C++ too (this includes name decoration of course).
> >
> > Pavel Kuznetsov
> > mailto:decraft.bigfoot.com
> >
> >
> >
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Re[2]: visual studio compatibility
2001-05-14 2:42 ` Re[2]: " Pavel Kuznetsov
@ 2001-05-14 11:34 ` Reed Kotler
2001-05-14 15:06 ` Daniel Berlin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Reed Kotler @ 2001-05-14 11:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Павел
Кузнецов,
Fergus Henderson
Cc: gcc
How do you intend to discover the microsoft name mangling and
object layout for C++?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pavel Kuznetsov" <decraft@bigfoot.com>
To: "Fergus Henderson" <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>
Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 2:42 AM
Subject: Re[2]: visual studio compatibility
> FH> On 13-May-2001, Pavel Kuznetsov <decraft@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >> So, me and my father are working on some kind of gcc binary
compatibility
> >> layer with visual studio. Among other this includes
> >> - structures packing
> >> - debug information format
> >> - etc.
>
> FH> I presume you're talking just about compatibility for C, not for C++?
>
> Nope, C++ too (this includes name decoration of course).
>
> Pavel Kuznetsov
> mailto:decraft.bigfoot.com
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re[2]: visual studio compatibility
2001-05-13 8:00 ` Fergus Henderson
@ 2001-05-14 2:42 ` Pavel Kuznetsov
2001-05-14 11:34 ` Reed Kotler
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Kuznetsov @ 2001-05-14 2:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fergus Henderson; +Cc: gcc
FH> On 13-May-2001, Pavel Kuznetsov <decraft@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> So, me and my father are working on some kind of gcc binary compatibility
>> layer with visual studio. Among other this includes
>> - structures packing
>> - debug information format
>> - etc.
FH> I presume you're talking just about compatibility for C, not for C++?
Nope, C++ too (this includes name decoration of course).
Pavel Kuznetsov
mailto:decraft.bigfoot.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-05-17 11:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-05-14 17:49 Re[2]: visual studio compatibility Mike Stump
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-05-13 2:41 Pavel Kuznetsov
2001-05-13 8:00 ` Fergus Henderson
2001-05-14 2:42 ` Re[2]: " Pavel Kuznetsov
2001-05-14 11:34 ` Reed Kotler
2001-05-14 15:06 ` Daniel Berlin
2001-05-14 15:32 ` Joe Buck
2001-05-17 11:24 ` Francois Gouget
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).