Shawn H Corey wrote:
I have just added an article to my blog on my programming language
about the GNU AutoTools. Please feel free to comment.
http://kori-programming-language.blogspot.ca/2014/09/a-closer-look-at-gnu-autotools.html
i wanted to comment on this that you should take a look at
Hello!
I'm currently in the process of adding cross-compilation support to a
linux distribution, but I'm running into a lot of nasty issues.
The #1 offender are proprietary pkg-config replacements, and there are many.
They break cross-compilation by returning non-sysrooted include and
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/23/2014 01:24 AM, John Spencer wrote:
and for posix
- sizeof int == 4
- have select()
- etc
These assumptions are unsafe, esp. on non-mainstream architectures/OSes,
which only partially implement c99.
E.g. it's not that uncommon to find toolchains for embedded
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/ says that the archive is
updated every 30 minutes - this seems to be untrue.
it seems to take at least 4 hrs - so please excuse my double-post (and
maybe consider updating the information on that page).
Thanks,
--JS
Russ Allbery wrote:
John Spencer maillist-autoc...@barfooze.de writes:
having an option like --assume-c99 could provide a shortcut so all
checks like
- have stdint.h
- have snprintf()
- etc
These are un-alike, just to mention. A surprising number of platforms
have an snprintf function
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014, John Spencer wrote:
there are many configure scripts out there that still check for things
that are standard since at least 10 years, and doing this extensively
and over and over (people building software themselves usually build
more than one
there are many configure scripts out there that still check for things
that are standard since at least 10 years, and doing this extensively
and over and over (people building software themselves usually build
more than one package) consumes a lot of time (especially due to the
non-parallel
