Peter Bex scripsit: > This looks very useful indeed. Is the documentation for CMake better > nowadays? I seem to recall that was the main reason we dropped CMake, > because nobody besides one person understood it well enough to maintain > the build.
That was part of it. In addition, CMake was unstable -- we were constantly changing our build process to cope with new and incompatible versions of CMake (also a problem with autotools) -- and it wasn't truly able to cope with our meta-circular build process, and that had to be kludged around. IMO, depending on GNU make only is the Right Thing for us: it is rock solid, and if we have to deal with each port separately to some degree, so what? There are not hundreds of targets these days that are of practical interest. What do you think of my idea of dropping even GNU make for MSVC support and just compiling everything with a batch file? One thing I note is that MSVC's C compiler is C89 only; do we have dependencies on post-C89 syntax either in Chicken itself (which presumably could be worked around) or in the generated code? -- Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead John Cowan of the Open Source movement. [email protected] --Bruce Perens, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan some years ago _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
