On Tuesday 07 September 2004 07:52, Robert Schwebel wrote:
Would autoconf/automake be an option for the C part of parrot?
No, its only available on a few systems.
Some months ago, I tried to cross compile Parrot to ARM (Zaurus), and to
compile Parrot directly on the Zaurus, with no success
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 02:00:14PM +0200, Jens Rieks wrote:
On Tuesday 07 September 2004 07:52, Robert Schwebel wrote:
Would autoconf/automake be an option for the C part of parrot?
No, its only available on a few systems.
How do you mean that? You surely don't want to run the compiler
On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 08:00, Jens Rieks wrote:
On Tuesday 07 September 2004 07:52, Robert Schwebel wrote:
Would autoconf/automake be an option for the C part of parrot?
No, its only available on a few systems.
Ok, this is probably a moot conversation because Metaconfig
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 08:00, Jens Rieks wrote:
On Tuesday 07 September 2004 07:52, Robert Schwebel wrote:
Would autoconf/automake be an option for the C part of parrot?
No, its only available on a few systems.
Ok, this is probably a moot
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 10:52:01AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
Ok, this is probably a moot conversation because Metaconfig
(http://www.linux-mag.com/2002-12/compile_03.html) was written by Larry
Wall for rn, and the Perl community has some serious social inertia when
it comes to switching to
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 10:52:01AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
Seriously, I've never come across any system that lacked autoconf
support AND which a high level language like those that would target
Parrot, ran on. If you're referring to the number of systems that have
autoconf supports Win32?
On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 11:59, Andrew Dougherty wrote:
Both autoconf and metaconfig assume a unix-like environment. Ambitious
plans for parrot's configure include non-unix environments too, such as
VMS and all the ports where perl5 uses a manually-generated config.*
template.
autoconf assumes
On Tuesday 07 September 2004 03:47 pm, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 10:52:01AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
Seriously, I've never come across any system that lacked autoconf
support AND which a high level language like those that would target
Parrot, ran on. If you're
Right now configure.pl pulls a bunch of configuration information
straight out of the current perl configuration. We need to stop that,
and this is as good a time as any.
If someone could go through and make a list of what info configure.pl
pulls from perl, I'll start writing (or snagging :)
On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 12:42, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Right now configure.pl pulls a bunch of configuration information
straight out of the current perl configuration. We need to stop that,
and this is as good a time as any.
If someone could go through and make a list of what info configure.pl
On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 18:29, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 12:42, Dan Sugalski wrote:
If someone could go through and make a list of what info configure.pl
pulls from perl, I'll start writing (or snagging :) the probing code
to do it ourselves, so we can be perl-free, at
On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 18:29, Aaron Sherman wrote:
I think right now that info is all in config/init/data.pl, and it's
Scratch that. I was grepping through the tree for Config{ which turns
out to not catch the way %Config is used in most of the tree... I'll
have a look and get you the details.
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 12:42:16PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Right now configure.pl pulls a bunch of configuration information
straight out of the current perl configuration. We need to stop that,
and this is as good a time as any.
If someone could go through and make a list of what info
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 07:26:22AM +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote:
If I can help testing cross compilation stuff please tell me.
Unfortunately I don't know enough of the Perl/Parrot internals to be
really useful for coding, but anyway.
Would autoconf/automake be an option for the C part of
14 matches
Mail list logo
