[Insight-users] Re: [Insight-developers] Re: SWIG 1.3.22 in CableSwig?

[William A. Hoffman]

At 04:36 AM 8/10/2006, Gaetan Lehmann wrote:

>Hi,
>
>The old version of SWIG included in cableswig becomes more and more a  
>problem.
>Python 2.5 for example have changed the signature of some functions, so we  
>now have to use the -fpermissive option to be able to build WrapITK with  
>that python release.
>Cableswig can't stay with an old release of SWIG too much time. It now  
>becomes a real problem.
>I know that the long term way to go is to drop cableswig and to implement  
>an xml parser in swig to parse gccxml output, but nobody seems to be ready  
>to do that for now, so wouldn't it be a good idea to update the SWIG  
>version of cableswig untill someone found enough time to implement the  
>swig parser ?

Updating swig is fine.   I am sure there will be issues.  There were several
"fixes" to the swig code that were made.  Some of those fixes did not make
it back into the swig main tree, so they will have to be "fixed" again.  I tried
to send all fixes back, but many times it was hard to give an example in pure
swig that showed the problem.   I would estimate the effort of updating to
a new swig at two weeks.    However, if we are luck all the problems will be fixed
and the API will not have changed significantly, and it will only take a day or so.

I would not expect anyone at Kitware to do this until Sept.

-Bill


-Bill