Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #381174 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-01-29 16:03 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-02-12 02:18 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 415 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-29 16:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-30 00:57 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 17:38 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 09:06 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 15:23 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 08:36 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 19:12 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-31 00:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 01:45 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 04:46 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 11:52 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 16:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 17:57 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-01-30 19:22 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-01-31 16:41 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-01-31 19:01 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-31 20:25 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 09:39 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 11:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 16:11 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 17:33 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 18:34 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-01 22:23 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 20:55 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 13:10 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 22:38 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-02 00:55 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 02:08 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 09:02 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-02 15:28 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 15:49 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-02 16:53 +0200
Stu Feldman (Was: Experimental C Build System) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-02-02 16:29 +0000
Re: Stu Feldman (Was: Experimental C Build System) Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 17:29 +0000
Re: Stu Feldman (Was: Experimental C Build System) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-04 05:44 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 13:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 15:57 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 15:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 17:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 18:26 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 05:45 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-03 21:24 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 13:19 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 21:42 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 22:12 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-03 01:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 12:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 12:25 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 06:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 19:52 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 19:58 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 05:52 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-03 14:52 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 14:59 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 06:51 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 11:08 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 15:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 16:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 17:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 13:29 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 12:31 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 22:11 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 16:24 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 01:19 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 17:51 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2024-02-04 14:07 +1100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:01 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 04:56 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 21:36 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 21:41 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 13:44 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 15:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 18:27 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 14:52 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2024-02-05 17:57 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 09:17 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-05 19:11 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 12:29 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 06:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 14:51 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-03 21:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-03 21:39 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 14:23 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 13:48 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 14:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-03 18:17 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 20:12 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-02-04 16:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 14:08 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-04 18:22 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 13:53 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 14:01 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 18:36 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 22:46 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 23:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 15:32 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-02-05 17:37 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 18:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-05 18:42 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 13:25 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-05 21:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 13:40 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-05 22:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 14:39 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-05 22:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-06 00:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-05 19:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 00:07 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 16:10 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-05 10:41 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-05 18:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-06 23:41 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 09:56 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 11:10 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2024-02-07 11:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 20:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 11:05 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2024-02-07 23:46 +1100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 15:09 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 14:21 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-07 10:11 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 20:46 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 21:53 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 14:54 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 16:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 17:34 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System [Ben] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 22:50 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 09:40 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 11:55 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 12:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 16:35 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 16:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 21:24 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 16:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2024-02-08 17:04 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 17:10 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-08 17:25 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-08 23:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 17:38 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 21:30 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-09 00:58 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 01:14 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-09 01:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 01:27 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-09 01:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 10:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-09 13:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-09 02:07 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 15:49 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 17:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 18:24 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 10:34 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 18:42 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 20:41 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 21:56 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 22:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 23:12 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 23:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-10 00:28 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 15:41 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 23:53 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-10 00:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 16:33 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-10 02:26 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-10 02:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-10 20:17 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-10 21:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-10 20:09 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 22:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-10 19:51 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-09 18:25 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 20:55 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-09 21:06 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 13:15 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 22:09 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-10 15:24 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-09 21:04 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 09:21 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-08 17:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-08 23:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 15:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-07 19:24 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 20:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 15:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-07 10:12 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 08:40 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-07 12:24 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 01:45 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:17 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:41 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:46 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-05 06:48 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 11:20 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 13:33 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-02-05 21:57 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 23:20 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 15:41 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-06 01:48 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-02-06 00:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-02-05 06:00 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 22:46 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 15:57 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-05 13:02 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 14:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 22:51 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 23:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-06 00:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 14:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 14:40 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-06 16:59 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 19:20 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-06 20:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 20:34 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-02-06 20:49 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-06 13:07 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 21:39 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-02-07 15:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 20:36 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 20:48 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 21:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 23:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 23:58 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-08 01:33 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-08 01:34 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-02-08 01:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-08 02:17 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-07 22:48 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 23:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-06 21:09 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 21:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-08 17:23 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-07 00:51 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-07 02:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-07 04:21 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-07 07:17 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-07 12:59 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2024-02-07 23:53 +1100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-07 15:45 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2024-02-08 12:56 +1100
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-08 17:22 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-06 00:07 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 10:08 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 11:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-09 21:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 22:34 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 22:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:28 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 01:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 17:42 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 02:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 19:03 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 10:54 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 21:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 16:09 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-03 01:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-03 02:36 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-03 00:53 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 13:51 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-02-03 17:56 -0500
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-04 07:52 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-04 06:18 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-02-02 03:22 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 11:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2024-02-03 00:25 +1100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 13:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 10:47 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-02 15:45 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 16:26 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 14:39 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-03 16:26 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 17:11 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-06 13:59 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 13:14 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-06 14:32 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-06 14:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 17:02 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-06 20:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 14:14 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-02 16:43 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 15:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-02-02 20:43 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 20:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 16:31 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 17:00 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 17:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 10:36 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 19:52 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 20:21 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 21:09 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 13:15 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 15:13 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 21:23 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 21:51 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-03 01:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 12:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-03 17:59 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 19:35 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-02-03 21:57 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 18:48 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 20:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-04 20:55 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-02-07 02:57 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 03:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 15:27 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 15:48 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 16:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-02-08 00:39 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 21:59 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 09:42 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 10:40 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 15:37 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 22:51 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 23:11 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-05 13:42 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-05 14:59 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-05 15:45 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 11:25 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 22:46 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-05 14:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 22:42 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 14:53 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 14:02 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-05 10:48 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 17:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-05 11:36 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 14:04 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 18:54 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 06:04 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 22:13 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 06:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 00:02 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 08:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-03 06:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 11:17 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 14:02 -0800
[meta] Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 15:04 +0100
Re: [meta] Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-03 07:19 -0800
Re: [meta] Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-04 05:29 +0100
Re: [meta] Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 05:37 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 16:26 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 11:05 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 21:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 15:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 00:26 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 00:35 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 11:13 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 10:54 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 14:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 01:46 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-01 16:20 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 21:34 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-01 16:09 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 17:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 19:25 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 19:51 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 12:12 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 12:43 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-01 22:36 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 23:09 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 21:17 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 09:48 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 11:49 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 21:39 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:24 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:38 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-01 23:53 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 23:14 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 09:17 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 12:09 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 15:25 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 17:50 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 03:14 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 20:38 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 13:46 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 14:06 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-05 14:48 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 15:23 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-30 16:46 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 03:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-31 03:23 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 08:47 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 11:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 15:31 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 23:00 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 00:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 03:07 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 15:00 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:40 +0000
system(3) (was: Re: Experimental C Build System) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-02-01 08:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 23:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 00:33 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:11 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 14:55 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 14:42 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-31 12:19 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 14:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 16:43 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-03 01:05 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 11:54 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-03 07:17 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 15:54 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 16:05 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 12:39 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 22:19 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:56 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:57 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-31 20:36 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System thiago <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 20:36 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 13:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System thiago <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 20:42 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-12 02:18 +0000
Page 18 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 Next page →
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-02 16:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240202082352.941@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #381602 |
On 2024-02-02, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > disciplined. Mine doesn't have the equivalent of .h files for example. My musical instrument has frets for easy intonation, you silly violin people, in your silly violin newsgroup. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-01 23:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uph9i5$2916e$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381521 |
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:34:36 +0100, David Brown wrote: > I am, however, considering CMake (which works at a > higher level, and outputs makefiles, ninja files or other project > files). Ninja was created as an alternative to Make. Basically, if your Makefiles are going to be generated by a meta-build system like CMake or Meson, then they don’t need to support the kinds of niceties that facilitate writing them by hand. So you strip it write down to the bare-bones functionality, which makes your builds fast while consuming minimal resources, and that is Ninja. > It appears to have some disadvantages compared to my makefiles, > such as needed to be run as an extra step when files are added or > removed to a project or dependencies are changed, but that doesn't > happen too often, and it's integration with other tools and projects > might make it an overall win. Some are proposing Meson as an alternative to CMake. I think they are saying that the fact that its scripting language is not fully Turing- equivalent is an advantage. Me, while I think the CMake language can be a little clunky in places, I still think having Turing-equivalence is better than not having it. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-02 11:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <upiep2$2i741$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381539 |
On 02/02/2024 00:30, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:34:36 +0100, David Brown wrote: > >> I am, however, considering CMake (which works at a >> higher level, and outputs makefiles, ninja files or other project >> files). > > Ninja was created as an alternative to Make. It is an alternative to some uses of make - but by no means all uses. > Basically, if your Makefiles > are going to be generated by a meta-build system like CMake or Meson, then > they don’t need to support the kinds of niceties that facilitate writing > them by hand. So you strip it write down to the bare-bones functionality, > which makes your builds fast while consuming minimal resources, and that > is Ninja. Yes. It is not normal to write ninja files by hand - the syntax is relatively simple, but quite limited. So it covers the lower level bits of "make", but not the higher level bits. Perhaps ninja is the tool that Bart is looking for? For the kinds of things he is doing, I don't think it would be hard to write the ninja files by hand. So it won't work for my needs, as I want to work at a higher level (without manually detailing file lists and dependencies). But if I find that CMake supports all I need at that level, then I expect I could just as easily generate ninja files as makefiles. The only issue that I know of is that ninja does not have full jobserver support, which could be important if the build involves other parallel tasks (like gcc LTO linking). > >> It appears to have some disadvantages compared to my makefiles, >> such as needed to be run as an extra step when files are added or >> removed to a project or dependencies are changed, but that doesn't >> happen too often, and it's integration with other tools and projects >> might make it an overall win. > > Some are proposing Meson as an alternative to CMake. I think they are > saying that the fact that its scripting language is not fully Turing- > equivalent is an advantage. > > Me, while I think the CMake language can be a little clunky in places, I > still think having Turing-equivalence is better than not having it. ;) For many reasons, CMake is the prime candidate as an alternative to make for my use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-02 21:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <upjm77$2oup9$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381587 |
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:05:22 +0100, David Brown wrote: > On 02/02/2024 00:30, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> Ninja was created as an alternative to Make. > > It is an alternative to some uses of make - but by no means all uses. It gets rid of the overlap when you have a meta-build system generating the lowest-level build control files (Makefiles).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-04 15:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <upobog$3n6np$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381587 |
On 02/02/2024 10:05, David Brown wrote:
> On 02/02/2024 00:30, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:34:36 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> I am, however, considering CMake (which works at a
>>> higher level, and outputs makefiles, ninja files or other project
>>> files).
>>
>> Ninja was created as an alternative to Make.
>
> It is an alternative to some uses of make - but by no means all uses.
>
>> Basically, if your Makefiles
>> are going to be generated by a meta-build system like CMake or
Meson, then
>> they don’t need to support the kinds of niceties that facilitate writing
>> them by hand. So you strip it write down to the bare-bones
functionality,
>> which makes your builds fast while consuming minimal resources, and that
>> is Ninja.
>
> Yes.
>
> It is not normal to write ninja files by hand - the syntax is
relatively simple, but quite limited. So it covers the lower level bits
of "make", but not the higher level bits.
>
>
> Perhaps ninja is the tool that Bart is looking for? For the kinds of
things he is doing, I don't think it would be hard to write the ninja
files by hand.
I've had a look. It doesn't look much simpler to me. But even if it was
(in that I could trivially extract the necessary info), open source
projects would need to use it.
This is from its manual:
"Ninja is yet another build system. It takes as input the
interdependencies of files (typically source code and output
executables) and orchestrates building them, quickly.
Ninja joins a sea of other build systems. Its distinguishing goal is to
be fast. It is born from my work on the Chromium browser project, which
has over 30,000 source files ... "
The projects I'm into are 100 to 1000 times smaller than that.
(On my machine, the binaries for Chrome are 20 files totalling 320MB.
But 230MB of that is in one giant DLL file. I wouldn't have taken that
approach. There are ways to split it up into more discrete binaries, and
yet still present one monolithic DLL.
BTW that 230MB DLL exports these 6 functions:
0 00CF1480 13571200 Fun ChromeMain
1 06DBE4B0 115074224 Fun CrashForExceptionInNonABICompliantCodeRange
2 02423320 37892896 Fun GetHandleVerifier
3 031AB2F0 52081392 Fun IsSandboxedProcess
4 0240DCD0 37805264 Fun RelaunchChromeBrowserWithNewCommandLineIfNeeded
5 08EF8C40 149916736 Fun sqlite3_dbdata_init
)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-02 00:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uphcr2$29n3n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381521 |
On 01/02/2024 21:34, David Brown wrote: > >> It works for me, and I'm sure could work for others if they didn't >> have makefiles forced down their throats and hardwired into their brains. > > /Nobody/ has makefiles forced on them. People use "make" because it is > convenient, and it works. If something better comes along, and it is > better enough to overcome the familiarity momentum, people will use that. > What? You have total control of your programming environment and never have to consider anybody else? For hobby programming you do in a way. Not if you want other people to use your stuff. But can always say that fun of doing things exactly your way outweighs the fun of getting downloads. But for professional or academic programming, often you'll find you have to use make. You don't have a choice. Either someone else took the decision, or there are so many other people who expect that build shall be via make that you have no real alternative. Now in one study, someone had wanted to do a survey of genetic sequence analysis software. They reported no results for half the programs, because they had attempted to build them, and failed. They didn't say, but it's a fair bet that most of those build systems used make. The software distribution system is a disaster and badly needs fixing. But there are lots of caveats. Bart's system might be better, but it as you say it needs traction. I'd be reluctant to evangelise for it and get everyone to use it at work, because it might prove to have major drawbacks, and then I'd get the blame. Which I wouldn't if I wrote a makefile which broke. Not in the same way. And of course one person can't rigorously test and debug, and buid an ecosystem of ancilliary tools, dcumentation, resoruces, help meesage boards. However a lot of things start small, with one lone programmer beavering away in his bedroom. It's necessary to look at the positives, and not strangle things at birth. -- Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-02 00:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uphdcb$29ng8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381550 |
On 02/02/2024 00:26, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On 01/02/2024 21:34, David Brown wrote: >> >>> It works for me, and I'm sure could work for others if they didn't >>> have makefiles forced down their throats and hardwired into their >>> brains. >> >> /Nobody/ has makefiles forced on them. People use "make" because it >> is convenient, and it works. If something better comes along, and it >> is better enough to overcome the familiarity momentum, people will use >> that. >> > What? > You have total control of your programming environment and never have to > consider anybody else? For hobby programming you do in a way. Not if you > want other people to use your stuff. But can always say that fun of > doing things exactly your way outweighs the fun of getting downloads. > > But for professional or academic programming, often you'll find you have > to use make. You don't have a choice. Either someone else took the > decision, or there are so many other people who expect that build shall > be via make that you have no real alternative. > > Now in one study, someone had wanted to do a survey of genetic sequence > analysis software. They reported no results for half the programs, > because they had attempted to build them, and failed. They didn't say, > but it's a fair bet that most of those build systems used make. The > software distribution system is a disaster and badly needs fixing. > > But there are lots of caveats. Bart's system might be better, but it as > you say it needs traction. I'd be reluctant to evangelise for it and get > everyone to use it at work, because it might prove to have major > drawbacks, and then I'd get the blame. There's a lite, flexible version of it, which doesn't interfere with any existing uses of 'make'. That is to also provide a simple list the C files somewhere, in a comment, or text files. Plus any other notes needed to build the project (written in English or Norwegian, I don't care; Norwegian will be decode to understand than a typical makefile). This is exactly what you did with the resource compiler, specifying the three lots of *.c files needed to build it; no makefiles or CMake needed (which failed if you remember).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-02 11:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <upif8m$2i741$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381550 |
On 02/02/2024 01:26, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On 01/02/2024 21:34, David Brown wrote: >> >>> It works for me, and I'm sure could work for others if they didn't >>> have makefiles forced down their throats and hardwired into their >>> brains. >> >> /Nobody/ has makefiles forced on them. People use "make" because it >> is convenient, and it works. If something better comes along, and it >> is better enough to overcome the familiarity momentum, people will use >> that. >> > What? > You have total control of your programming environment and never have to > consider anybody else? For hobby programming you do in a way. Not if you > want other people to use your stuff. But can always say that fun of > doing things exactly your way outweighs the fun of getting downloads. > Okay, none of the people talking about "make" /here/ had it forced on them for the uses they are talking about /here/. Yes, I have a very large degree of control over my programming environment - because I work in a company where employees get to make the decisions that they are best qualified to make, and management's job is to support them. One of the important factors I consider is interaction with colleagues and customers, for which "make" works well. And while people may be required to use make, or particular compilers, or OS's, no one is forced to /like/ a tool or find it useful. I believe that when people here say they like make, or find it works well for them, or that it can handle lots of different needs, or that they know of nothing better for their requirements, they are being honest about that. If they didn't like it, they would say. The only person here whom we can be absolutely sure does /not/ have "make" forced upon them for their development, is Bart. And he is the one who complains about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-02 10:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <upihku$2ii1u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381588 |
On 02/02/2024 10:13, David Brown wrote: > On 02/02/2024 01:26, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On 01/02/2024 21:34, David Brown wrote: >>> >>>> It works for me, and I'm sure could work for others if they didn't >>>> have makefiles forced down their throats and hardwired into their >>>> brains. >>> >>> /Nobody/ has makefiles forced on them. People use "make" because it >>> is convenient, and it works. If something better comes along, and it >>> is better enough to overcome the familiarity momentum, people will >>> use that. >>> >> What? >> You have total control of your programming environment and never have >> to consider anybody else? For hobby programming you do in a way. Not >> if you want other people to use your stuff. But can always say that >> fun of doing things exactly your way outweighs the fun of getting >> downloads. >> > > Okay, none of the people talking about "make" /here/ had it forced on > them for the uses they are talking about /here/. > > Yes, I have a very large degree of control over my programming > environment - because I work in a company where employees get to make > the decisions that they are best qualified to make, and management's job > is to support them. One of the important factors I consider is > interaction with colleagues and customers, for which "make" works well. > > And while people may be required to use make, or particular compilers, > or OS's, no one is forced to /like/ a tool or find it useful. I believe > that when people here say they like make, or find it works well for > them, or that it can handle lots of different needs, or that they know > of nothing better for their requirements, they are being honest about > that. If they didn't like it, they would say. > > The only person here whom we can be absolutely sure does /not/ have > "make" forced upon them for their development, is Bart. And he is the > one who complains about it. > Not for my own development, no. Unless that includes having to build external dependenceies from source, which are written in C. Or just things I want to test my C compiler on. If I want to build Seed7, for example, that comes with 19 different makefiles. LibJPEG has 15 different makefiles. GMP has one makefiles, but a 30,000-line configure script dependent on Linux. I could and have spent a lot of time on many of those in manually discovering the C files necessary to building the project. Once done, the process was beautifully streamlined and simple. But I know this a waste of time and nobody's mind is going to be changed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-02 14:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <upitec$2knd2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381588 |
On 02/02/2024 10:13, David Brown wrote: > On 02/02/2024 01:26, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On 01/02/2024 21:34, David Brown wrote: >>> >>>> It works for me, and I'm sure could work for others if they didn't >>>> have makefiles forced down their throats and hardwired into their >>>> brains. >>> >>> /Nobody/ has makefiles forced on them. People use "make" because it >>> is convenient, and it works. If something better comes along, and it >>> is better enough to overcome the familiarity momentum, people will >>> use that. >>> >> What? >> You have total control of your programming environment and never have >> to consider anybody else? For hobby programming you do in a way. Not >> if you want other people to use your stuff. But can always say that >> fun of doing things exactly your way outweighs the fun of getting >> downloads. >> > > Okay, none of the people talking about "make" /here/ had it forced on > them for the uses they are talking about /here/. > > Yes, I have a very large degree of control over my programming > environment - because I work in a company where employees get to make > the decisions that they are best qualified to make, and management's job > is to support them. One of the important factors I consider is > interaction with colleagues and customers, for which "make" works well. > > And while people may be required to use make, or particular compilers, > or OS's, no one is forced to /like/ a tool or find it useful. I believe > that when people here say they like make, or find it works well for > them, or that it can handle lots of different needs, or that they know > of nothing better for their requirements, they are being honest about > that. If they didn't like it, they would say. > > The only person here whom we can be absolutely sure does /not/ have > "make" forced upon them for their development, is Bart. And he is the > one who complains about it. > My job is to write the algorithms. Not to set uo the build system. Someone else was given that job and set up the system I described recently, with git and conan and Azure. He didn't do a bad job at all and we can get a bug fix out to customers within hours on request. My input is just to moan when occasionally things go wrong. Had I done it I'm sure it would have been a lot worse, because basically my skills are in algorithm development, not setting things up like that. It's makefile free, thank goodness. My main peeve is boost. When things go wrong, it always seems to be the boost. I've refused to include it in my library, despite requests. Whilst it would be nice to have the threads, I just think it would be a perpetual source of build failures and grief. That's from experience of boost in other projects. I might ultimately have to give in. I don't have total control, at the end of the day, it's not my personal code, it's company code. Because I'm constantly shifting between platforms, make isn't veey useful to me. And because mainly I do algorithms, the guts of it are simple source files with no dependencies other than the standard libraries. So you don't need elaborates systems for pulling things in. It's just submit a list of sources to the compiler. And you don't need make to do that. So I don't use make much, for reasons other than that I don't particularly like it. CMake is a sort of front end to make, which says it all really. But CMake can also spin uo an IDE project file. And if you are developing rather than just building, that's far more convenient. So I distribute using CMake in preference to make. But if someone won't accept CMake, then I'd have no hesitation, and drop down to make. -- Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-02 01:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uphe1d$29s9g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381521 |
On 01.02.2024 22:34, David Brown wrote: > > I've nothing against shorter or simpler makefiles. [...] During mid/late 1990's someone at our site looked for an alternative to Make. After some evaluation of tools it was decided to not replace Make. I've just googled for what at that time appeared to be the most promising candidate (it's obviously still there) and the description of Jam reads as it would fulfill some of the requirements that have been mentioned by various people here (see https://freetype.org/jam/ for details). Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-01 16:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240201081857.753@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #381443 |
On 2024-02-01, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > 5. Modules provide encapsulation of data, code and namespaces. Case study: C++ originally had only classes which provie this. Then it acquired the namespace construct which also provides it.. In spite of that, someone decided it needs modules also. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-01 21:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uph2p7$27uq1$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381443 |
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:39:15 +0100, David Brown wrote: > 2. You can compile modules independently to allow partial builds. In our Comp Sci classes we were careful to draw a distinction between “separate” and “independent” compilation. The latter is exemplified by (old-style) Fortran and C, where the same name may be declared in multiple units, and the linker will happily tie them together, but without any actual checking that the declarations match. “Separate” compilation, on the other hand, means that there is some consistency checking done between the declarations, and the program will fail to build if there are mismatches. Ada has this. And it looks like Fortran has acquired it, too, since the Fortran 90 spec.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-01 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <upgfog$24m0s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381403 |
On 31/01/2024 20:25, bart wrote: > BTW that 'make' only works on my machine because it happens to be part > of mingw; none of my other C compilers have make. > > And as written, it only works for 'cc' which comes with 'gcc' Doesn't dos/windows have nmake and cl?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-01 17:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <upgkij$25lpj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381488 |
On 01/02/2024 16:09, Richard Harnden wrote: > On 31/01/2024 20:25, bart wrote: >> BTW that 'make' only works on my machine because it happens to be part >> of mingw; none of my other C compilers have make. >> >> And as written, it only works for 'cc' which comes with 'gcc' > > Doesn't dos/windows have nmake and cl? No.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-01 19:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <seSuN.420645$83n7.76941@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #381497 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 01/02/2024 16:09, Richard Harnden wrote: >> On 31/01/2024 20:25, bart wrote: >>> BTW that 'make' only works on my machine because it happens to be part >>> of mingw; none of my other C compilers have make. >>> >>> And as written, it only works for 'cc' which comes with 'gcc' >> >> Doesn't dos/windows have nmake and cl? > >No. You sure about that? They sure used to have them as an add-on. IIRC, they're still part of visual studio.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-01 19:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <upgsoq$274ph$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381502 |
On 01/02/2024 19:25, Scott Lurndal wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 01/02/2024 16:09, Richard Harnden wrote: >>> On 31/01/2024 20:25, bart wrote: >>>> BTW that 'make' only works on my machine because it happens to be part >>>> of mingw; none of my other C compilers have make. >>>> >>>> And as written, it only works for 'cc' which comes with 'gcc' >>> >>> Doesn't dos/windows have nmake and cl? >> >> No. > > You sure about that? They sure used to have them > as an add-on. IIRC, they're still part of visual studio. Visual Studio is a 10,000MB monster. It might well have it around, but it's so complex, it's been years since I've even seen discrete cl.exe and link.exe programs, despite scouring massive, 11-deep directory structures. Meanwhile my everyday compilers are 0.4MB for my language and 0.3MB for C. I like to keep things simple. Everybody else likes to keep things complicated, and the more the better. Anyway, acquiring VS just to build one small program would be like just a giant sledgehammer, 1000 times normal size, to crack a tiny nut.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-01 12:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <upgu0a$278rd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381506 |
On 2/1/2024 11:51 AM, bart wrote: > On 01/02/2024 19:25, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 01/02/2024 16:09, Richard Harnden wrote: >>>> On 31/01/2024 20:25, bart wrote: >>>>> BTW that 'make' only works on my machine because it happens to be part >>>>> of mingw; none of my other C compilers have make. >>>>> >>>>> And as written, it only works for 'cc' which comes with 'gcc' >>>> >>>> Doesn't dos/windows have nmake and cl? >>> >>> No. >> >> You sure about that? They sure used to have them >> as an add-on. IIRC, they're still part of visual studio. > > Visual Studio is a 10,000MB monster. Shit happens. I still use MSVC, quite a lot actually. I install everything! ;^) Have the space, so, well, okay. ;^) > It might well have it around, but > it's so complex, it's been years since I've even seen discrete cl.exe > and link.exe programs, despite scouring massive, 11-deep directory > structures. > > Meanwhile my everyday compilers are 0.4MB for my language and 0.3MB for C. > > I like to keep things simple. Everybody else likes to keep things > complicated, and the more the better. > > Anyway, acquiring VS just to build one small program would be like just > a giant sledgehammer, 1000 times normal size, to crack a tiny nut.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-01 12:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <upgvq7$27kba$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381509 |
On 2/1/2024 12:12 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 2/1/2024 11:51 AM, bart wrote: >> On 01/02/2024 19:25, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> On 01/02/2024 16:09, Richard Harnden wrote: >>>>> On 31/01/2024 20:25, bart wrote: >>>>>> BTW that 'make' only works on my machine because it happens to be >>>>>> part >>>>>> of mingw; none of my other C compilers have make. >>>>>> >>>>>> And as written, it only works for 'cc' which comes with 'gcc' >>>>> >>>>> Doesn't dos/windows have nmake and cl? >>>> >>>> No. >>> >>> You sure about that? They sure used to have them >>> as an add-on. IIRC, they're still part of visual studio. >> >> Visual Studio is a 10,000MB monster. > > Shit happens. I still use MSVC, quite a lot actually. I install > everything! ;^) Have the space, so, well, okay. ;^) The fat bastard wants me to update to version (17.8.6). I currently have (17.8.5): :^) https://youtu.be/t2mU6USTBRE?t=94 Ham On! LOL! ;^) > > > >> It might well have it around, but it's so complex, it's been years >> since I've even seen discrete cl.exe and link.exe programs, despite >> scouring massive, 11-deep directory structures. >> >> Meanwhile my everyday compilers are 0.4MB for my language and 0.3MB >> for C. >> >> I like to keep things simple. Everybody else likes to keep things >> complicated, and the more the better. >> >> Anyway, acquiring VS just to build one small program would be like >> just a giant sledgehammer, 1000 times normal size, to crack a tiny nut. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-01 22:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20240201223647.00002006@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #381506 |
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:51:53 +0000 bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 01/02/2024 19:25, Scott Lurndal wrote: > > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> On 01/02/2024 16:09, Richard Harnden wrote: > >>> On 31/01/2024 20:25, bart wrote: > >>>> BTW that 'make' only works on my machine because it happens to > >>>> be part of mingw; none of my other C compilers have make. > >>>> > >>>> And as written, it only works for 'cc' which comes with 'gcc' > >>> > >>> Doesn't dos/windows have nmake and cl? > >> > >> No. > > > > You sure about that? They sure used to have them > > as an add-on. IIRC, they're still part of visual studio. > > Visual Studio is a 10,000MB monster. It might well have it around, > but it's so complex, it's been years since I've even seen discrete > cl.exe and link.exe programs, despite scouring massive, 11-deep > directory structures. > If you only download command-line build tools then it's somewhat less huge. 2022 version is 3,152,365,436 bytes. I don't know the size of installation package. It looks like on my home PC I used online installer. > Meanwhile my everyday compilers are 0.4MB for my language and 0.3MB > for C. > > I like to keep things simple. Everybody else likes to keep things > complicated, and the more the better. > > Anyway, acquiring VS just to build one small program would be like > just a giant sledgehammer, 1000 times normal size, to crack a tiny > nut.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web