From the description of make_rt it did not become quite clear to me whether or not it is possible to compile a 64-bit app on my system just by using the /Win64 keyword? Or do I need the 64-bit IDL for this?
MichaelT writes: > I have 32-bit-IDL running under 32-bit-Vista.
> From the description of make_rt it did not become quite clear to me > whether or not it is possible to compile a 64-bit app on my system > just by using the /Win64 keyword? Or do I need the 64-bit IDL for > this?
My understanding of making run-time versions of IDL is that you must have each and every flavor of machine you wish to make a run-time version of. It's a gigantic pain and typically involves deleting about 50 pirated movies on your college student's machine so you can install IDL and make a version for a machine you don't personally own. :-(
Cheers,
David -- David Fanning, Ph.D. Fanning Software Consulting, Inc. Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/ Sepore ma de ni thui. ("Perhaps thou speakest truth.")
> make a run-time version of. It's a gigantic pain and typically > involves deleting about 50 pirated movies on your college > student's machine so you can install IDL and make a version > for a machine you don't personally own. :-(
On Jul 31, 12:22 am, MichaelT <michael.theus...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> OK, thanks. So it is like I expected :-(
> > make a run-time version of. It's a gigantic pain and typically > > involves deleting about 50 pirated movies on your college > > student's machine so you can install IDL and make a version > > for a machine you don't personally own. :-(
> :-)
> Cheers, > Michael
Michael,
If this question relates to AviStack, I run 64 bit IDL under Vista, and can probably help you out if you can't source a 64 bit version of IDL.
On Jul 30, 10:31 am, David Fanning <n...@dfanning.com> wrote:
> MichaelT writes: > > I have 32-bit-IDL running under 32-bit-Vista.
> > From the description of make_rt it did not become quite clear to me > > whether or not it is possible to compile a 64-bit app on my system > > just by using the /Win64 keyword? Or do I need the 64-bit IDL for > > this?
> My understanding of making run-time versions of IDL is that > you must have each and every flavor of machine you wish to > make a run-time version of. It's a gigantic pain and typically > involves deleting about 50 pirated movies on your college > student's machine so you can install IDL and make a version > for a machine you don't personally own. :-(
Actually, I found it to be possible to make the runtime versions for other machines (in some cases, at least), selecting it with the make_rt arguments. That is in recent versions of IDL, at least (I do not remember it being possible in older ones).
But it takes a trick to it, which I did not see mentioned in the documentation: The result of the runtime build should contain, among other things, a directory with the IDL binaries. In the case of linux 32, for instance, it is in idl71/bin/bin.linux.x86, inside the directory made by make_rt. But when make_rt is run for a machine incompatible with the host, that directory will be missing, even though all other files and directories are made (even the .exe, .ini and .inf files for the Windows version when built in Linux, for instance).
However, there is a solution for this problem: the contents of that IDL bin directory seem to be independent of the program being compiled, so all it takes is to get a copy of that from some runtime built in the target architecture, and copy it into the proper place. But it gets better: if that directory (in the case of Win32, bin.x86) is copied into the IDL installation's bin directory (in the case of Linux, itt/idl71/bin, which is where bin.linux.x86_64 and bin.linux.x86 reside), then make_rt notices it and puts them into the runtime.
So now that I have copied the bin.x86 and bin.x86_64 from Windows runtime builds into my Linux itt/idl71/bin, I simply use the proper switch in make_rt, and it makes the whole finished product to use in Windows. I have only done that to make Windows (32 and 64) runtime versions from Linux. Maybe I will try it in the other direction, and also see if I can find a Mac to test with.
It may be that your Win32 IDL already contains the Win64 binaries (mine, installed in Vista 64, has both), in which case make_rt would already have everything it needs, so you would only need to select the win32 or win64 keyword.
> On Jul 30, 10:31 am, David Fanning <n...@dfanning.com> wrote:
> > MichaelT writes: > > > I have 32-bit-IDL running under 32-bit-Vista.
> > > From the description of make_rt it did not become quite clear to me > > > whether or not it is possible to compile a 64-bit app on my system > > > just by using the /Win64 keyword? Or do I need the 64-bit IDL for > > > this?
> > My understanding of making run-time versions of IDL is that > > you must have each and every flavor of machine you wish to > > make a run-time version of. It's a gigantic pain and typically > > involves deleting about 50 pirated movies on your college > > student's machine so you can install IDL and make a version > > for a machine you don't personally own. :-(
> Actually, I found it to be possible to make the runtime versions for > other machines (in some cases, at least), selecting it with the > make_rt arguments. That is in recent versions of IDL, at least (I do > not remember it being possible in older ones).
> But it takes a trick to it, which I did not see mentioned in the > documentation: The result of the runtime build should contain, among > other things, a directory with the IDL binaries. In the case of linux > 32, for instance, it is in idl71/bin/bin.linux.x86, inside the > directory made by make_rt. But when make_rt is run for a machine > incompatible with the host, that directory will be missing, even > though all other files and directories are made (even the .exe, .ini > and .inf files for the Windows version when built in Linux, for > instance).
> However, there is a solution for this problem: the contents of that > IDL bin directory seem to be independent of the program being > compiled, so all it takes is to get a copy of that from some runtime > built in the target architecture, and copy it into the proper place. > But it gets better: if that directory (in the case of Win32, bin.x86) > is copied into the IDL installation's bin directory (in the case of > Linux, itt/idl71/bin, which is where bin.linux.x86_64 and > bin.linux.x86 reside), then make_rt notices it and puts them into the > runtime.
> So now that I have copied the bin.x86 and bin.x86_64 from Windows > runtime builds into my Linux itt/idl71/bin, I simply use the proper > switch in make_rt, and it makes the whole finished product to use in > Windows. I have only done that to make Windows (32 and 64) runtime > versions from Linux. Maybe I will try it in the other direction, and > also see if I can find a Mac to test with.
> It may be that your Win32 IDL already contains the Win64 binaries > (mine, installed in Vista 64, has both), in which case make_rt would > already have everything it needs, so you would only need to select the > win32 or win64 keyword.
By the way, not all files in the IDL instalation's bin directory are needed. Only those listed in manifest_rt.txt, which lives in idl71/bin/ make_rt. So if you do not have the binaries for the platform you want to build for, you could go to ITT's website, get the installation file for that platform, and copy only those listed in the manifest into the proper directory inside itt/idl71/bin.
pp writes: > By the way, not all files in the IDL instalation's bin directory are > needed. Only those listed in manifest_rt.txt, which lives in idl71/bin/ > make_rt. So if you do not have the binaries for the platform you want > to build for, you could go to ITT's website, get the installation file > for that platform, and copy only those listed in the manifest into the > proper directory inside itt/idl71/bin.
Did I mention the whole thing is a gigantic pain in the ass? (Linux and Windows are relatively easy, by the way. Have you added a Mac version yet?)
Cheers,
David
P.S. Let's just say if someone who understands this were to build and put IDL virtual machines for the various platforms in a publicly accessible place, the world would be much better for it. :-)
-- David Fanning, Ph.D. Fanning Software Consulting, Inc. Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/ Sepore ma de ni thui. ("Perhaps thou speakest truth.")
pp wrote: > On Jul 30, 10:31 am, David Fanning <n...@dfanning.com> wrote: > Actually, I found it to be possible to make the runtime versions for > other machines (in some cases, at least), selecting it with the > make_rt arguments. That is in recent versions of IDL, at least (I do > not remember it being possible in older ones).
> But it takes a trick to it, which I did not see mentioned in the > documentation: The result of the runtime build should contain, among > other things, a directory with the IDL binaries. In the case of linux > 32, for instance, it is in idl71/bin/bin.linux.x86, inside the > directory made by make_rt. But when make_rt is run for a machine > incompatible with the host, that directory will be missing, even > though all other files and directories are made (even the .exe, .ini > and .inf files for the Windows version when built in Linux, for > instance).
> However, there is a solution for this problem: the contents of that > IDL bin directory seem to be independent of the program being > compiled, so all it takes is to get a copy of that from some runtime > built in the target architecture, and copy it into the proper place. > But it gets better: if that directory (in the case of Win32, bin.x86) > is copied into the IDL installation's bin directory (in the case of > Linux, itt/idl71/bin, which is where bin.linux.x86_64 and > bin.linux.x86 reside), then make_rt notices it and puts them into the > runtime.
> So now that I have copied the bin.x86 and bin.x86_64 from Windows > runtime builds into my Linux itt/idl71/bin, I simply use the proper > switch in make_rt, and it makes the whole finished product to use in > Windows. I have only done that to make Windows (32 and 64) runtime > versions from Linux. Maybe I will try it in the other direction, and > also see if I can find a Mac to test with.
> It may be that your Win32 IDL already contains the Win64 binaries > (mine, installed in Vista 64, has both), in which case make_rt would > already have everything it needs, so you would only need to select the > win32 or win64 keyword.
I successfully just made an uber-installation on Mac OS X including Mac-Intel 32/64-bit, Linux 32/64-bit, and Windows 32-bit. Applications made with MAKE_RT there should be able to run on any of those platforms -- I tested Mac-Intel 64-bit, Linux 32-bit and Windows 32-bit and they all worked fine. Cool! (Of course the output was 430+ MB.)
On Jul 31, 5:07 pm, mgalloy <mgal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I successfully just made an uber-installation on Mac OS X including > Mac-Intel 32/64-bit, Linux 32/64-bit, and Windows 32-bit. Applications > made with MAKE_RT there should be able to run on any of those platforms > -- I tested Mac-Intel 64-bit, Linux 32-bit and Windows 32-bit and they > all worked fine. Cool! (Of course the output was 430+ MB.)
I was trying just that. I built a directory containing all the files listed in the manifest for win32, win64, lin32, lin64, macppc32, macint32 and macint64. That directory can then be passed as an argument to make_rt (idldir), so that no changes have to be made to the IDL directory structure. I will look for a place to put a tar file with it (212Mb), as David suggested.
I also tested making a Linux runtime under Windows, and a Mac runtime under Linux, and they worked, though with two more caveats:
1) The startup script made in Windows for Linux had CR+LF ending the lines, which bash did not seem to like. So I had to use dos2unix on that file to fix it.
2) The launcher for Mac does not get created in Linux, because its is missing osacompile to make it. It could be solved by either running osacompile in the Mac, to generate the .app file from the _mac_script_source.txt file made by make_rt, or by just calling the program from the terminal.
On Jul 31, 5:54 pm, pp <pp.pente...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was trying just that. I built a directory containing all the files > listed in the manifest for win32, win64, lin32, lin64, macppc32, > macint32 and macint64. That directory can then be passed as an > argument to make_rt (idldir), so that no changes have to be made to > the IDL directory structure. I will look for a place to put a tar file > with it (212Mb), as David suggested.
