On Thursday 30 August 2007 12:20:38 pm Sergey Lyubka wrote:
> > I don't know if this was one of Fabrice's design goals, but it's
> > certainly one
> > of mine. Some day I'd like to get a self-bootstrapping system with just
> > four
> > packages:
> >
> > uClibc
> > BusyBox (or ToyBox)
> > lin
On Thursday 30 August 2007 1:40:44 am Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> Rob Landley wrote:
> > The reason you can't run a glibc version of gcc against uClibc is that
> > pieces of gcc like libgcc_s.so link against their libc, and leak
> > references to that libc. So if you ever divide by a 64 bit
> I don't know if this was one of Fabrice's design goals, but it's certainly
> one
> of mine. Some day I'd like to get a self-bootstrapping system with just
> four
> packages:
>
> uClibc
> BusyBox (or ToyBox)
> linux
> tcc
>
> I want to boot that under qemu and have it rebuild itself from
Rob Landley wrote:
The reason you can't run a glibc version of gcc against uClibc is that pieces
of gcc like libgcc_s.so link against their libc, and leak references to that
libc. So if you ever divide by a 64 bit number on a 32 bit platform or weird
corner cases like that, a reference to glib
On Wednesday 29 August 2007 6:05:46 am Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> On 8/28/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Building the entire project, including all cross compiler targets, the
> > build currently does this:
> >
> > cc -O2 -g -Wall -fsigned-char -Os -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2
On 8/28/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> Building the entire project, including all cross compiler targets, the build
> currently does this:
>
> cc -O2 -g -Wall -fsigned-char -Os -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -m386 \
> -malign-functions=0 -o tcc tcc.c -lm -ldl
> cc -O2 -g -Wa
On Wednesday 29 August 2007 3:00:57 am Peter Lund wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 20:44 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > I don't know if this was one of Fabrice's design goals, but it's
> > certainly one of mine. Some day I'd like to get a self-bootstrapping
> > system with just four packages:
> >
> >
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 11:14 +0200, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> Very IMPRESSIVE. It's fast too. And so simple. (Compared to autoconf and
> friends.)
Thank you :)
It is still more messy than I would have liked :(
(Getting the quoting just right was a bit hard in places -- but I guess
it's still easie
Peter Lund wrote:
> Very far.
>
> Here's a demonstration session that's about half an hour old.
>
> You can find the code at http://vax64.dk/bølge
>
Very IMPRESSIVE. It's fast too. And so simple. (Compared to autoconf and
friends.)
By the way, I like the comment `` Switch off GNU Make "featur
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 22:41 +0200, Attila Kinali wrote:
> > I tried as an experiment last year to see how far I could get without
> > using any kind of configure script, just with a GNU makefile (*).
>
> Can you tell more about this? I'd be very interested to hear/read
> how far make can be taken
Peter Lund wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 00:38 +0200, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
>
>
>> Many things can work well enough. Now that we have cmake
>> on the table, I can put forth omake too, I suppose.
>>
>> http://omake.metaprl.org/index.html
>>
>
> As much as I like functional languages (and th
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 00:38 +0200, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> Many things can work well enough. Now that we have cmake
> on the table, I can put forth omake too, I suppose.
>
> http://omake.metaprl.org/index.html
As much as I like functional languages (and that's a lot!), I don't
think that's a goo
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 20:44 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> I don't know if this was one of Fabrice's design goals, but it's certainly
> one
> of mine. Some day I'd like to get a self-bootstrapping system with just four
> packages:
>
> uClibc
> BusyBox (or ToyBox)
> linux
> tcc
I'm sure
On 8/28/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Building the entire project, including all cross compiler targets, the build
> currently does this:
>
> cc -O2 -g -Wall -fsigned-char -Os -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -m386 \
> -malign-functions=0 -o tcc tcc.c -lm -ldl
> cc -O2 -g -Wall -
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 5:38:20 pm Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> Shawn Rutledge wrote:
> > I'd suggest having a look at cmake. It seems to have worked well for
> > Chicken Scheme. The configuration is user-friendly (ncurses menus
> > rather than having to pass in a lot of --options to ./configure),
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 1:14:19 am Peter Lund wrote:
> >How about not having that many tests?
>
> Certainly the option I would prefer. I don't see tcc as having nearly
> as many external dependencies as my project had.
I don't know if this was one of Fabrice's design goals, but it's certain
On 8/28/07, Jakob Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Rutledge wrote:
> > I'd suggest having a look at cmake. It seems to have worked well for
> > Chicken Scheme. The configuration is user-friendly (ncurses menus
> > rather than having to pass in a lot of --options to ./configure),
> >
>
On Monday 27 August 2007 5:22:09 pm Johannes Klarenbeek wrote:
> hi,
>
> would be nice if it would build with pelles c as well
>
> http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc/
>
> regards,
> --jo
Since that's based on LCC, it seems like it would be good to get it to build
on LCC first.
(Note: I don't h
Shawn Rutledge wrote:
> I'd suggest having a look at cmake. It seems to have worked well for
> Chicken Scheme. The configuration is user-friendly (ncurses menus
> rather than having to pass in a lot of --options to ./configure),
>
Many things can work well enough. Now that we have cmake
on t
On 8/26/07, Gregg Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just found tcc/tinycc recently. I'd like to use it under cygwin, osx,
> and opendbsd. However, its config/make system is a little weak. I
> had to hack it up just to get it to compile on mingw, and there are
> still problems.
>
> Anybody ou
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:01:50 +0200
Peter Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tried as an experiment last year to see how far I could get without
> using any kind of configure script, just with a GNU makefile (*).
Can you tell more about this? I'd be very interested to hear/read
how far make can b
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 18:06 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> If we're doing enough feature tests we need to cache the results, something
> is
> wrong.
I agree. I was just saying that it was possible (and it was necessary
in my case because I had to check for many packages with pkg-config +
get the
On Monday 27 August 2007 8:01:50 am Peter Lund wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 00:21 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > I'm all for improving the config and the makefiles (they need it), but I
> > don't personally consider autoconf or automake to be an improvement.
>
> Thank you!
>
> That makes me feel s
hi,
would be nice if it would build with pelles c as well
http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc/
regards,
--jo
2007/8/27, Peter Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 00:21 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>
> > I'm all for improving the config and the makefiles (they need it), but I
> don
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 00:21 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> I'm all for improving the config and the makefiles (they need it), but I
> don't
> personally consider autoconf or automake to be an improvement.
Thank you!
That makes me feel safer about the project.
I tried as an experiment last year t
On Sunday 26 August 2007 5:56:09 am Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just found tcc/tinycc recently. I'd like to use it under cygwin, osx,
> and opendbsd. However, its config/make system is a little weak. I
> had to hack it up just to get it to compile on mingw, and there are
> still problems.
>
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:13:15 -0500
"Gregg Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ffmpeg's configure is not a lame non-portable config/build system. It's
>
> I'll take your word for it, although
Have a look at it. FFmpeg's configure, together with its ancestor
MPlayer's configure are what i th
On 8/26/07, Ivo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I forsee Checking for Fortran compiler... etc..
> >
> > I don't know what kind of traumas you suffered in your early
> > development, but I had nothing to do with them.
>
> Insulting people doesn't make you look smarter.
Lighten up, Ivo. It was a
On Sunday 26 August 2007 13:42, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> On 8/26/07, Ivo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 26 August 2007 12:56, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> > > Anybody out there willing to help test an autotoolized version? I've
> > > been doing a lot of work with autoconf and friends lately, s
On 8/26/07, Ivo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 26 August 2007 12:56, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> > Anybody out there willing to help test an autotoolized version? I've
> > been doing a lot of work with autoconf and friends lately, so I'm
> > thinking about giving tinycc the treatment. This mi
On Sunday 26 August 2007 12:56, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> Anybody out there willing to help test an autotoolized version? I've
> been doing a lot of work with autoconf and friends lately, so I'm
> thinking about giving tinycc the treatment. This might involve a
> little bit of source code tweaking,
Hi,
Just found tcc/tinycc recently. I'd like to use it under cygwin, osx,
and opendbsd. However, its config/make system is a little weak. I
had to hack it up just to get it to compile on mingw, and there are
still problems.
Anybody out there willing to help test an autotoolized version? I've
32 matches
Mail list logo
