On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 04:37:39PM +, fao_ wrote:
> On 2018-12-30 9:27 pm, stephen Turner wrote:
> mk(1) is nice and I use it for a lot of my personal projects.
...
> There's a Go rewrite here with some fixes. I haven't used it but those
mk on small projects? Go???
Are we still on
On 2018-12-30 9:27 pm, stephen Turner wrote:
I was thinking of a cleaner gnu make. The code you guys have written
while I am having a hard time reading it, has inspired me to attempt
once more to learn C.
mk(1) is nice and I use it for a lot of my personal projects.
It's essentially the same
On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 09:53:50 +0100, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> Maybe start with that. Make is a pretty simple algorithm: You build a
> dependency graph (which is a directed acyclic graph), then you find the
> target you are supposed to make (i.e. the first target or the command
> line arguments),
I do like the idea of the warning “this is not posix” or “this is a gnu’ism”.
It would be cool to have a suggested changes as well to possibly encourage
posix usage.
Do you know if there is a gnu make test to verify all features are included and
working? I’m currently looking for a gmake test
I was thinking of a cleaner gnu make. The code you guys have written while I am
having a hard time reading it, has inspired me to attempt once more to learn C.
I have always thought gnu was bloated but a significant improvement over
windows. I got started when redhat was free (1999?) and about
On 2018-12-30 01:32, stephen Turner wrote:
If one was going to rewrite a cleaner make what would be the
recommended approach?
I see in a slightly older 2012 release of the code entries for windows
32 and amiga. I’m questioning why!
Would it be worth while to strip make of these items and then
On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 11:48:26 +0100
Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
Dear Daniel,
> There is one problem: to build a Linux kernel, you need GNU make
> extensions. There are also many other programs that require GNU make
> extensions (eg musl libc). 100% POSIX[0] make means you will have to
> install GNU
niedz., 30 gru 2018 o 10:36 Laslo Hunhold napisał(a):
>
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 20:32:13 -0500
> stephen Turner wrote:
>
>
> Really helpful would be a make-implementation that is 100% POSIX[0]. It
> makes me sad to see that most Makefiles use GNU-extensions, as they are
> not necessary in most
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 20:32:13 -0500
stephen Turner wrote:
Dear Stephen,
> If one was going to rewrite a cleaner make what would be the
> recommended approach?
>
> I see in a slightly older 2012 release of the code entries for
> windows 32 and amiga. I’m questioning why!
>
> Would it be worth
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 08:32:13PM -0500, stephen Turner wrote:
> If one was going to rewrite a cleaner make what would be the recommended
> approach?
> [...]
> I am not skilled enough to start from scratch [...]
>
Maybe start with that. Make is a pretty simple algorithm: You build a
dependency
If one was going to rewrite a cleaner make what would be the recommended
approach?
I see in a slightly older 2012 release of the code entries for windows 32 and
amiga. I’m questioning why!
Would it be worth while to strip make of these items and then attempt to clean
the code section by
11 matches
Mail list logo
