[M3devel] Build Server - Plan

Tue Sep 1 07:52:16 CEST 2015

old mail, sorry: indeed Metrowerks isn't relevant, but I figured I'd "stress test" my output.Digital Mars might be another.And yes the Intel compiler -- which is a proxy for a set of compilers -- the EDG frontend.(There are approx four C++ frontends in practical use these days: Microsoft, gcc, clang, EDG.Most compilers other than those use the EDG front end.)
 - Jay


> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:43:06 +0000
> From: microcode at zoho.com
> To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] Build Server - Plan
> 
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 10:11:15AM +0000, Jay K wrote:
> > Autoconf output has little/none dependency.Sun's SPARC optimization are
> > mostly irrelevant as we have little C code,unless you use the C backend. 
> 
> Ok, well, it sounds like it will be increasingly important as you go to your
> C backend though.
> 
> >  > somewhat of a test of C portability 
> > This I appreciate. We have some C code and the C backend.More compilers
> > have "helped".The Tru64 compiler was another.On HP-UX in-box I had only
> > K&R so resorted to gcc (Including bootstrapping through gcc 3.x;see
> > m3-sys/m3cc/src/m3makefile...)We work with Microsoft Visual C++ too.And
> > now clang -- having found and worked around a bug in its assembler.Some
> > time soon I'll expand to Metrowerks and Digital Mars.. 
> 
> I have the Intel C/C++ and Fortran compilers on a Linux box but I don't have
> the latest versions. C/C++ are not my thing but if I can help by just
> building stuff to see what messages we get or if it breaks etc. let me know
> and I will try to participate.
> 
> I didn't know Metrowerks was still around. I thought they got swallowed up
> by Motorola and then removed from all the non-embedded space.
> 
> 
> >  - Jay
> > 
> > 
> > > Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 08:24:09 +0000
> > > From: microcode at zoho.com
> > > To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> > > Subject: Re: [M3devel] Build Server - Plan
> > > 
> > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 07:52:13AM +0000, Jay K wrote:
> > > > The output of autoconf/automake should have lightweight dependencies.They
> > > > might stress make, might require GNU make.They might stress the sh, but I
> > > > think there are adequate shells out there. 
> > > 
> > > That is typically one issue with autoconf, requiring gnu tools in the
> > > path. On Solaris this can be annoying since most Solaris people don't use
> > > gcc or bash or have them in their path and not all (none of?) the gnu pieces
> > > are up to date or even current by any stretch of the imagination.
> > > 
> > > > They are meant to be easy for people building stuff to use.They aren't
> > > > meant to be easy for people developing stuff to use. 
> > > 
> > > Not sure what you meant here...
> > > 
> > > > Look at this way..while people complain and there are widelyused
> > > > alternatives like cmake, autoconf/automake are in widespreaduse, and they
> > > > do provide things that work for Linux, Solaris, BSD, MacOSX, Cygwin,HPUX,
> > > > Aix, Irix, etc. 
> > > 
> > > They often don't "work" for Solaris as-installed but they can most often be
> > > made to work. Increasingly, as automake and its prereqs get version bumps
> > > there are problems building apps on Solaris because Solaris installs with a
> > > very back-level version of gcc and a rather incomplete set of gnu tools. I
> > > ran into a problem with the last year where Solaris awk was not good enough
> > > to install(!) an app that compiled on Solaris as part of autotools so I had
> > > to download a newish copy of gawk and install it. So really, it is much
> > > better not to go there if you can avoid it.
> > > 
> > > I am not suggesting an alternative to autotools but just pointing out it is
> > > not really accurate to say they work on Linux, Solaris, BSD, etc. except for
> > > Linux. I also run BSD on several platforms and because of the same issues as
> > > with Solaris (old copy of gcc and gnu tools and POSIX-compliant awk, sed,
> > > shells, etc. not being good enough for autotools) it is sometimes
> > > non-trivial and painful to get Linux apps built on BSD. There is obviously
> > > no good/easy solution to this, just to point out it is not the slam-dunk as
> > > might be thought. 
> > > 
> > > > Furthermore, consider any platform that has a native gcc, is likely
> > > > buildingthat with autoconf/automake.
> > > 
> > > Conceded, yet on Solaris it is not clear why gcc is there. It is old and it
> > > is in a non-standard location and is often not used. Ideally, apps to be run
> > > on Solaris should be able to be built with native (non-gnu) tools. The
> > > Studio compilers are very good and have optimizations for SPARC that should
> > > be better than what gcc can provide and it is also somewhat of a test of C
> > > portability since Studio doesn't necessarily provide all non-standard gcc
> > > extensions.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > M3devel mailing list
> > > M3devel at elegosoft.com
> > > https://mail.elegosoft.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m3devel
> >  		 	   		  
> 
> -- 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> M3devel mailing list
> M3devel at elegosoft.com
> https://mail.elegosoft.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m3devel
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20150901/3862b390/attachment-0001.html>