It looks pretty good, maybe we should recommend it as an external component.
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 09:43:42 -0500 stephen Turner <stephen.n.tur...@gmail.com> 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 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 used it for a while with pcc and > haven't seen issues related to m4. Perhaps this would be > a helpful starting point for you. > > http://haddonthethird.net/m4/ > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:31 AM, stephen Turner > <stephen.n.tur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As far as m4 is concerned I happened to meet a guy who > > converted 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 used it for a while with pcc and > > haven't seen issues related to m4. Perhaps this would > > be a helpful starting point for you. > > > > http://haddonthethird.net/m4/ > > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2017, > > <sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> 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 > >> constraint themselves to use the > >> bare minimum of makefile extensions, and be honest > >> about it (they aren't, be > >> carefull). suckless: better have a bit more roughness > >> in the makefile than depends on super duper makefile > >> extensions... which would make coding an alternative > >> to make something crazy or insane. It's like C, the > >> bare minimum of extensions would be those required to > >> compile a kernel like linux (a good part of C89 syntax > >> is already tooooo much, hence > >> even more with C99), but the gcc inline assembly is > >> critical. The "right" answer would be to abstract away > >> what's really needed (minimal) from a C toolchain for > >> a reasonable linux build (even clang/llvm people > >> failed). > >> > >> -- > >> Sylvain > >> > > >
pgpV3vHN2USRH.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
