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 to see how far I could get without using any kind of configure script, just with a GNU makefile (*). It turns out that one get everything auto* gives you plus it is faster, more user friendly, more programmer friendly and doesn't result in (extremely!) big configure shell scripts. *) It has cached feature tests and header dependency tests. There are commands (make targets) to list the caches and to flush them etc. I /could/ make it generate a "config.h" file but it is cleaner to rely on standards for the most part and a few -Dxxx=yyy parameters to the compiler for the rest. -Peter _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
