According to Larry Wall:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 12:27:36PM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
: Ha, I'm sure it could probably be done, but of course most of what
: the shell does it invoke other programs, so in the common case it still
: wouldn't give you portability to non-Unix-like platforms.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 08:36:04AM -0400, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: According to Larry Wall:
: On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 12:27:36PM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
: : Ha, I'm sure it could probably be done, but of course most of what
: : the shell does it invoke other programs, so in the common case
* Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-09-08 17:37:52 +0100]:
The probing is going to *have* to get written in something that compiles
down to parrot bytecode to work on the autoconf-deprived systems, so with
that as a given there's no need for autoconf ahead of that.
How feasable would it
On Sep 18, 2004, at 2:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-09-08 17:37:52 +0100]:
The probing is going to *have* to get written in something that
compiles
down to parrot bytecode to work on the autoconf-deprived systems, so
with
that as a given there's no need
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 12:27:36PM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
: Ha, I'm sure it could probably be done, but of course most of what
: the shell does it invoke other programs, so in the common case it still
: wouldn't give you portability to non-Unix-like platforms.
Just translate it to a language
At 4:48 PM -0700 9/9/04, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Timm Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*) Person building runs platform-specific script
And on VMS you'll need...er...I don't even know *what* incantation
you'd need, but I don't think it'd be pretty.
@BUILD
or possibly
@MAKE
Horrible,
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:00:25 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote (in part):
ajs All of this depends on if Dan was saying No autoconf RELIANCE,
ajs dammit or actually No autoconf, dammit. The first is a reasonable
ajs stance to take given the portability concerns. The second throws away
ajs useful
On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 12:40, Larry Wall wrote:
have to be careful to separate architectural parameters from policy
parameters. An architectural parameter says your integers are 32 bits.
A policy parameter says you want to install the documentation in the
/foo/bar/baz directory. Cross
Robert Schwebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sh doesn't run on all platforms that perl has done historically.
On which platforms shall perl run _today_ which is not able to run sh?
Windows, you insensitive clod. :^P
In all seriousness, this is an area where you have to be very careful
to
Timm Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*) Person building runs platform-specific script
If that script is going to be platform-specific anyway, why not use Autoconf
for the platforms that can handle it?
By platform-specific, we mean that on Unix you'll have to run this command:
$ export
While I am generally in favor of this idea (and I did get the first
miniparrots to work, pretty much as proof of concept), I do think it's
likely to be rather challenging (and interesting):
Remember, _pure_ C89 provides only these headers:
assert.h complex.h
At 7:26 PM -0400 9/7/04, Josh Wilmes wrote:
While I am generally in favor of this idea (and I did get the first
miniparrots to work, pretty much as proof of concept), I do think it's
likely to be rather challenging (and interesting):
Remember, _pure_ C89 provides only these headers:
assert.h
At 7:22 AM +0200 9/8/04, Robert Schwebel wrote:
Dan,
sorry, although I'm a long term perl user I'm not that familiar with the
internals of the perl development process that I know all the old
stories ;)
The plan looks good, but some things are still unclear to me:
*) Person building runs
At 9:44 AM -0400 9/8/04, Josh Wilmes wrote:
At 9:23 on 09/08/2004 EDT, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- executing programs in any kind of sophisticated way
(fork/exec, pipes)
We do get system and popen, though.
Well, system at least. popen is not part of the c89 spec as far as I
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 09:51:35AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Whether there's a per-platform shell script for the Unices or one
generic one that'll work well enough to bootstrap to the Use parrot
because it's nicer phase of the build's up in the air. This way
assumes the user has a
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 04:46:28PM +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 09:51:35AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Whether there's a per-platform shell script for the Unices or one
generic one that'll work well enough to bootstrap to the Use parrot
because it's nicer phase of
Robert Schwebel wrote:
Is my impression correct that nobody has ever tried crosscompiling perl,
and that nobody is really interested in doing it in the future?
I assume that, if you don't take this into account from the beginning it
is not very probable that it will ever work before Perl 7 :-)
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 04:03:03PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
No. The WinCE port of perl (in the Perl 5 source) is a cross compile on
Win32, as I understand it. The Zaurus packages are built as a cross compile
on another Linux, and should be repeatable based on the instructions in
the
Robert Schwebel wrote:
On which platforms shall perl run _today_ which is not able to run sh?
VMS. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean that nobody uses it.
-garrett
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 08:07:52AM -0700, Gregory Keeney wrote:
Sounds like some of us with cross-compiling experience need to get our
hands dirty, once the basic build system is in place.
I suppose I can do quite some testing in this case: with PTXdist I can
easily build complete Linux
At 5:16 PM +0200 9/8/04, Robert Schwebel wrote:
sh doesn't run on all platforms that perl has done historically.
On which platforms shall perl run _today_ which is not able to run sh?
No offense, but it *doesn't* *matter*. We're not using autoconf, as
the subject of this thread makes clear.
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:23:36AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
No offense, but it *doesn't* *matter*. We're not using autoconf, as
the subject of this thread makes clear. That's not negotiable.
A really convincing argumentation.
Robert
--
Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel |
Robert Schwebel wrote:
It seems to be a little bit strange to me that the ability to be
compiled on prehistoric systems seems to be more important than a
correct cross compiler environment.
On which platforms shall perl run _today_ which is not able to run sh?
For a particular project I am
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:34:50 +0200, Robert Schwebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:23:36AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
No offense, but it *doesn't* *matter*. We're not using autoconf, as
the subject of this thread makes clear. That's not negotiable.
A really convincing
Herbert Snorrason wrote:
I suggest we institute a Rule One for Dan. (And number two, too,
while we're at it.) It'd be easier that way.
Ooh, ooh, I know, I know!
Rule Number One:
No one wants the [interrobang if your email client or font
doesn't like utf-8]
Rule Number Two:
Dan gets
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 08:57:22 -0700, Gregory Keeney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rule Number One:
No one wants the [interrobang if your email client or font
doesn't like utf-8]
Rule Number Two:
Dan gets the
I was thinking more along the lines of Dan is always right and Dan
is right,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
delurk
I searched the list archives on groups.google.org to try to get more context
for this discussion, but didn't come up with much that seems relevent. Can
somebody point me to an old thread where Autoconf is discussed?
One other thing:
*)
According to Robert Schwebel:
It seems to be a little bit strange to me that the ability to be
compiled on prehistoric systems seems to be more important than a
correct cross compiler environment.
Anyone doing cross-compilation should know enough about their target
environment to build a
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:46:17 +, Herbert Snorrason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest we institute a Rule One for Dan. (And number two, too,
while we're at it.) It'd be easier that way.
That rule already exists, but I think Dan still feels insecure about
it ;) The Larry Way(tm) is to include
At 5:34 PM +0200 9/8/04, Robert Schwebel wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:23:36AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
No offense, but it *doesn't* *matter*. We're not using autoconf, as
the subject of this thread makes clear. That's not negotiable.
A really convincing argumentation.
It wasn't an
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:30:19AM -0500, Timm Murray wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
delurk
I searched the list archives on groups.google.org to try to get more context
for this discussion, but didn't come up with much that seems relevent. Can
somebody point me
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 05:41:33PM +0200, Adam Herout wrote:
: For a particular project I am considering using Parrot on a custom
: system based on Texas Instuments DSP processor - this class of systems
: is described as weird rather than prehistoric.
: I hope that Parrot might be the option for
Larry Wall wrote:
In principle, cross-compile configuration is drop-dead easy. All you
need is a database of what the probe program *would* have answered
had you been able to run it on the other machine. (Getting someone
to write that database entry for you is the tricky part.) You also
have
At 4:02 PM + 9/8/04, Herbert Snorrason wrote:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 08:57:22 -0700, Gregory Keeney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rule Number One:
* No one wants the ? [interrobang if your email client or font
doesn't like utf-8]
Rule Number Two:
* Dan gets the ?
I was thinking more along
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:37:52 -0400, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While Dan is always right has that nice ego-stroke effect, I don't
think too many people would or, really, should, stand for it. We'd be
better served with The designer makes the final call, for better or
worse as a rule
Larry,
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 09:40:44AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
In principle, cross-compile configuration is drop-dead easy. All you
need is a database of what the probe program *would* have answered
had you been able to run it on the other machine. (Getting someone
to write that database
According to Robert Schwebel:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:23:36AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
No offense, but it *doesn't* *matter*. We're not using autoconf, as
the subject of this thread makes clear. That's not negotiable.
A really convincing argumentation.
Robert, you seem not to
On Thursday 09 September 2004 02:40 am, Larry Wall wrote:
An interesting question would be whether we can bootstrap a Parrot
cross-compile database using autoconf's *data* without buying into the
shellism of autoconf. Or give someone the tool to extract the data
from the autoconf database
At 11:30 on 09/08/2004 CDT, Timm Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*) Person building runs platform-specific script
If that script is going to be platform-specific anyway, why not use Autoconf
for the platforms that can handle it? You'd cover a rather large number of
platforms that way,
This argument's old. Very old, so it may be unfamiliar to many
people. The subject generates enough heat that I don't want to go
there again.
We are not using autoconf. Period.
Parrot's build process, when shipped will be:
*) Person building runs platform-specific script
*) Script builds
40 matches
Mail list logo
