<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>old mail, sorry: indeed Metrowerks isn't relevant, but I figured I'd "stress test" my output.<div>Digital Mars might be another.</div><div>And yes the Intel compiler -- which is a proxy for a set of compilers -- the EDG frontend.</div><div>(There are approx four C++ frontends in practical use these days: Microsoft, gcc, clang, EDG.</div><div>Most compilers other than those use the EDG front end.)</div><div><br></div><div> - Jay<br><br><br><br><div>> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:43:06 +0000<br>> From: microcode@zoho.com<br>> To: m3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] Build Server - Plan<br>> <br>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 10:11:15AM +0000, Jay K wrote:<br>> > Autoconf output has little/none dependency.Sun's SPARC optimization are<br>> > mostly irrelevant as we have little C code,unless you use the C backend. <br>> <br>> Ok, well, it sounds like it will be increasingly important as you go to your<br>> C backend though.<br>> <br>> > > somewhat of a test of C portability <br>> > This I appreciate. We have some C code and the C backend.More compilers<br>> > have "helped".The Tru64 compiler was another.On HP-UX in-box I had only<br>> > K&R so resorted to gcc (Including bootstrapping through gcc 3.x;see<br>> > m3-sys/m3cc/src/m3makefile...)We work with Microsoft Visual C++ too.And<br>> > now clang -- having found and worked around a bug in its assembler.Some<br>> > time soon I'll expand to Metrowerks and Digital Mars.. <br>> <br>> I have the Intel C/C++ and Fortran compilers on a Linux box but I don't have<br>> the latest versions. C/C++ are not my thing but if I can help by just<br>> building stuff to see what messages we get or if it breaks etc. let me know<br>> and I will try to participate.<br>> <br>> I didn't know Metrowerks was still around. I thought they got swallowed up<br>> by Motorola and then removed from all the non-embedded space.<br>> <br>> <br>> > - Jay<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > > Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 08:24:09 +0000<br>> > > From: microcode@zoho.com<br>> > > To: m3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> > > Subject: Re: [M3devel] Build Server - Plan<br>> > > <br>> > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 07:52:13AM +0000, Jay K wrote:<br>> > > > The output of autoconf/automake should have lightweight dependencies.They<br>> > > > might stress make, might require GNU make.They might stress the sh, but I<br>> > > > think there are adequate shells out there. <br>> > > <br>> > > That is typically one issue with autoconf, requiring gnu tools in the<br>> > > path. On Solaris this can be annoying since most Solaris people don't use<br>> > > gcc or bash or have them in their path and not all (none of?) the gnu pieces<br>> > > are up to date or even current by any stretch of the imagination.<br>> > > <br>> > > > They are meant to be easy for people building stuff to use.They aren't<br>> > > > meant to be easy for people developing stuff to use. <br>> > > <br>> > > Not sure what you meant here...<br>> > > <br>> > > > Look at this way..while people complain and there are widelyused<br>> > > > alternatives like cmake, autoconf/automake are in widespreaduse, and they<br>> > > > do provide things that work for Linux, Solaris, BSD, MacOSX, Cygwin,HPUX,<br>> > > > Aix, Irix, etc. <br>> > > <br>> > > They often don't "work" for Solaris as-installed but they can most often be<br>> > > made to work. Increasingly, as automake and its prereqs get version bumps<br>> > > there are problems building apps on Solaris because Solaris installs with a<br>> > > very back-level version of gcc and a rather incomplete set of gnu tools. I<br>> > > ran into a problem with the last year where Solaris awk was not good enough<br>> > > to install(!) an app that compiled on Solaris as part of autotools so I had<br>> > > to download a newish copy of gawk and install it. So really, it is much<br>> > > better not to go there if you can avoid it.<br>> > > <br>> > > I am not suggesting an alternative to autotools but just pointing out it is<br>> > > not really accurate to say they work on Linux, Solaris, BSD, etc. except for<br>> > > Linux. I also run BSD on several platforms and because of the same issues as<br>> > > with Solaris (old copy of gcc and gnu tools and POSIX-compliant awk, sed,<br>> > > shells, etc. not being good enough for autotools) it is sometimes<br>> > > non-trivial and painful to get Linux apps built on BSD. There is obviously<br>> > > no good/easy solution to this, just to point out it is not the slam-dunk as<br>> > > might be thought. <br>> > > <br>> > > > Furthermore, consider any platform that has a native gcc, is likely<br>> > > > buildingthat with autoconf/automake.<br>> > > <br>> > > Conceded, yet on Solaris it is not clear why gcc is there. It is old and it<br>> > > is in a non-standard location and is often not used. Ideally, apps to be run<br>> > > on Solaris should be able to be built with native (non-gnu) tools. The<br>> > > Studio compilers are very good and have optimizations for SPARC that should<br>> > > be better than what gcc can provide and it is also somewhat of a test of C<br>> > > portability since Studio doesn't necessarily provide all non-standard gcc<br>> > > extensions.<br>> > > <br>> > > <br>> > > _______________________________________________<br>> > > M3devel mailing list<br>> > > M3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> > > https://mail.elegosoft.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m3devel<br>> > <br>> <br>> -- <br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> M3devel mailing list<br>> M3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> https://mail.elegosoft.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m3devel<br></div></div> </div></body>
</html>