|
|
Re: Building SWT JNI for 64 Bit [message #938200 is a reply to message #932845] |
Tue, 09 October 2012 16:51 |
Grant Gayed Messages: 2150 Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Do you really need to build all of swt, including its libraries, from
source? The most typical scenario for wanting to build swt's jar is to
include some java-level changes (eg.- customizations, bug fix backports,
etc.), in which case only swt's java content needs to be compiled and
the libraries from its corresponding version can be used as-is.
If building the libraries from source is really needed then you need to
point at a XULRunner 1.8.x SDK corresponding to the target platform. A
XULRunner 1.8.0.4 SDK is (or at least was) available for x86 from
mozilla.org. However mozilla.org did not publish SDKs for x86_64 back
then, so we had to compile one from source, done by compiling XULRunner
1.8.0.1 from source (which creates its SDK as a side-effect). If you
grep swt's source for "XULRUNNER_SDK" then you'll see where to
substitute your path-to-XULRunner for the default value.
HTH,
Grant
On 10/4/2012 9:44 AM, James Long wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to build a version of the swt.jar file that contains support
> for 64 bit JVM's. The complication is that i also need xulrunner support
> for this as well.
> So i've downloaded the src.zip file and tried to start building the 32
> bit version as a confidence building effort.
>
> I have been following: http://www.eclipse.org/swt/faq.php#howbuildjar
>
> I have got the environment set up so i can build the first four files
> (swt_win_xxx.dll, swt-wgl-win32-xxxx.dll, swt-gdip-win32-xxxx.dll,
> swt-awt-win32-4307) however I have run into a brick wall in that i
> cannot even build the swt_xulrunner_xxxx.dll because of xpcom.cpp etc.
> being missing.
>
> Does anyone know what i'm missing here. I know i need some extra
> packages but i have no idea what they are or how to find them.
>
> Has anyone tried to do this?
>
> Is anyone aware of issues that will prevent me from building a 64 bit
> version?
>
> Thanks
>
> James
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.05200 seconds