Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-09 Thread Cág
> > I did not promote the LLVM alternatives to binutils, just noted that > > FreeBSD (where the elftoolchain project started) seem to move towards > > the LLVM utilities instead (so I don't know how much development there > > is on elftoolchain). > > This is very bad omens for the *BSD people.

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-09 Thread sylvain . bertrand
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 12:42:45PM +0100, Jens Staal wrote: > I did not promote the LLVM alternatives to binutils, just noted that > FreeBSD (where the elftoolchain project started) seem to move towards > the LLVM utilities instead (so I don't know how much development there > is on elftoolchain).

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-09 Thread Jens Staal
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 10:17:13AM +, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 09:29:08AM +0100, Jens Staal wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 06:37:39PM -0500, stephen Turner wrote: > > > From a user perspective it has been a treat. I had issues with the GNU > > > M4

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-09 Thread sylvain . bertrand
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 09:29:08AM +0100, Jens Staal wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 06:37:39PM -0500, stephen Turner wrote: > > From a user perspective it has been a treat. I had issues with the GNU > > M4 compiling on a embedded musl and PCC system but this M4 compiled > > quick and clean. The

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-09 Thread Jens Staal
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 06:37:39PM -0500, stephen Turner wrote: > From a user perspective it has been a treat. I had issues with the GNU > M4 compiling on a embedded musl and PCC system but this M4 compiled > quick and clean. The only potential downside i can think of is it may > not be well

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-08 Thread stephen Turner
>From a user perspective it has been a treat. I had issues with the GNU M4 compiling on a embedded musl and PCC system but this M4 compiled quick and clean. The only potential downside i can think of is it may not be well maintained. last i checked the website there were no new releases from when

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-07 Thread Mattias Andrée
It looks pretty good, maybe we should recommend it as an external component. On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 09:43:42 -0500 stephen Turner wrote: > I think this was blocked by the mailing list, sorry if > its a duplicate. I wanted to mention that there is a m4 > converted from a

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-07 Thread stephen Turner
I think this was blocked by the mailing list, sorry if its a duplicate. I wanted to mention that there is a m4 converted from a bsd rewrite of m4 into a more Linux compatible version, he advised it had all the popularly used features but may be missing a few of the lesser used. I for one have

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-03 Thread Cág
Mattias Andrée wrote: > I'm not convinced mk(1) is less sucky > than POSIX make(1), but it may be less > sucky than many make(1) implementations. There is also bmake(1)[0], a port of NetBSD's make(1)[1]. OpenBSD has their own make(1)[2] as well. Cág [0]:

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-03 Thread sylvain . bertrand
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 06:45:49PM +0100, Mattias Andrée wrote: > I'm work on implementing make(1) In theory, linux kbuild should be a good reference for the minimum set of makefile extensions to code. Well, in theory, the guys paid full-time at the linux fondation to work on kbuild, should have

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-02 Thread Mattias Andrée
On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 17:59:14 -0600 Joshua Haase wrote: > Mattias Andrée writes: > > Also, I think mk(1) uses rc(1), right? > > On plan9port it uses the shell defined on the environment. That's not precisely portable. > > I think `mk` is way more

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-02 Thread Greg Reagle
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017, at 18:44, Mattias Andrée wrote: > Also, I think mk(1) uses rc(1), right? The variable MKSHELL contains the shell command line mk uses to run recipes. If the first word of the command ends in rc or rcsh, mk uses rc(1)'s quoting rules; otherwise

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-02 Thread Joshua Haase
Mattias Andrée writes: > Also, I think mk(1) uses rc(1), right? On plan9port it uses the shell defined on the environment. I think `mk` is way more suckless.

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-02 Thread Mattias Andrée
On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 17:08:17 -0600 Joshua Haase wrote: > Mattias Andrée writes: > > > Greetings! > > > > I'm work on implementing make(1), and I have two > > questions for you: > > Why make and not mk? Also, I think mk(1) uses rc(1), right?

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-02 Thread Mattias Andrée
On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 17:08:17 -0600 Joshua Haase wrote: > Mattias Andrée writes: > > > Greetings! > > > > I'm work on implementing make(1), and I have two > > questions for you: > > Why make and not mk? They are not compatible and make(1) is used almost

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-02 Thread hiro
NIH On 2/3/17, Joshua Haase wrote: > Mattias Andrée writes: > >> Greetings! >> >> I'm work on implementing make(1), and I have two questions for you: > > Why make and not mk? > >

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-02 Thread Joshua Haase
Mattias Andrée writes: > Greetings! > > I'm work on implementing make(1), and I have two questions for you: Why make and not mk?

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-02 Thread Mattias Andrée
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 20:08:04 + Connor Lane Smith wrote: > On 2 February 2017 at 19:54, Markus Wichmann > wrote: > > GNU make style patsubst rules, i.e. > > > > %.o: %.c > > $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $@ $< > > > > Those are really useful. > > While GNU's

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-02 Thread Connor Lane Smith
On 2 February 2017 at 20:08, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > > .o: > > $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ $< By which I of course mean `.c:'. We're all making mistakes today! cls

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-02 Thread Connor Lane Smith
On 2 February 2017 at 19:54, Markus Wichmann wrote: > GNU make style patsubst rules, i.e. > > %.o: %.c > $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $@ $< > > Those are really useful. While GNU's syntax can be more general, that rule can be done in POSIX make: > .c.o: > $(CC) $(CFLAGS)

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-02 Thread Mattias Andrée
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 20:54:45 +0100 Markus Wichmann wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 06:45:49PM +0100, Mattias Andrée > wrote: > > Greetings! > > > > I'm work on implementing make(1), and I have two > > questions for you: > > > > 1) What extensions do you think I shall

Re: [dev] Some core tools

2017-02-02 Thread Markus Wichmann
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 06:45:49PM +0100, Mattias Andrée wrote: > Greetings! > > I'm work on implementing make(1), and I have two questions for you: > > 1) What extensions do you think I shall implement? I think I will >add $(foreach), $(shell), and I will definitely add $(SHELL). >

[dev] Some core tools

2017-02-02 Thread Mattias Andrée
Greetings! I'm work on implementing make(1), and I have two questions for you: 1) What extensions do you think I shall implement? I think I will add $(foreach), $(shell), and I will definitely add $(SHELL). $(SHELL) is the macro that use to select the shell to use, POSIX only