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 4 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 21 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-04 13:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <upnvvp$3l4rm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381689 |
On 03/02/2024 18:02, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On 03/02/2024 16:03, bart wrote: >> On 03/02/2024 15:44, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> >>> On the other had, if you want a GUI, the Windows system is all set up >>> for you and you just have to call the right functions. On Unix you >>> have to configure some sort of front end to X, there's a lot more >>> messing about, and the GUI elements aren't consistent. >> >> For GUI they're both a nightmare unless you use a simpler library that >> sits on top. Or are you saying that X is even worse than WinAPI? > > I've programmed for both and Windows GUI is quite a bit easier to use. > You have to enter a library name explictly to get the common controls, > for some stupid reason, but once you do that the whole system is set up > for you. Just call the API more or less as you would any other C > function (except for tiny message loop interface), you've got a rich set > of controls, and they are well designed and harmonised with the rest of > the programs on the system. > > X - if you try to program to Xlib directly you're messing about with > colur maps and goodness knows what just to get up a window. And if you > don't it's dependency land and all that that entails, with some popular > widget toolsets but no real standards. And often you find that these > will break. However nowadays you can use QT. Which is alot better but > still not very well designed with a non-canonical slot / message system > and poor facilites for layout. That's why I was driven to write Baby X. > A simple clean interface to Xlib that would allow you to get graphics up > quickly and easily. You shouldn't have to do that, of course. > No sane person ever programs directly using Xlib or WinAPI for a gui unless they have extremely niche requirements. People program using QT, wxWidgets, GTK, SDL, or a range of other toolkits - almost all of which are cross-platform and also support a range of language bindings. (Few people program gui apps in C.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-03 12:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <upm7q5$3943m$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381685 |
On 2/3/2024 8:03 AM, bart wrote: [...] Do you have a windows installation with a recent version of MSVC installed? Give vcpkg a go, and see how it builds things... Then automatically integrates them into MSVC. It's pretty nice and about time. ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-03 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <upmdn0$3a9gd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381700 |
On 03/02/2024 20:31, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 2/3/2024 8:03 AM, bart wrote: > [...] > > Do you have a windows installation with a recent version of MSVC > installed? Give vcpkg a go, and see how it builds things... Then > automatically integrates them into MSVC. It's pretty nice and about > time. ;^) You haven't followed by posts very well. I want to keep as far away from all that stuff as possible. (The last time I installed VS, it took 90 minutes. Each time it started up, usually by inadvertently because of file association, it took 90 seconds. On the same machine, an old one, it took 0.2 seconds to build my C compiler.) Everything I am about is managing to do this stuff by the simplest, leanest means possible. If a program is written in C, then why would you need anything other than a C compiler to build it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-03 16:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <upmlfm$3bdol$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381711 |
On 2/3/2024 2:11 PM, bart wrote: > On 03/02/2024 20:31, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 2/3/2024 8:03 AM, bart wrote: >> [...] >> >> Do you have a windows installation with a recent version of MSVC >> installed? Give vcpkg a go, and see how it builds things... Then >> automatically integrates them into MSVC. It's pretty nice and about >> time. ;^) > > You haven't followed by posts very well. I want to keep as far away from > all that stuff as possible. Okay. > (The last time I installed VS, it took 90 minutes. Each time it started > up, usually by inadvertently because of file association, it took 90 > seconds. On the same machine, an old one, it took 0.2 seconds to build > my C compiler.) It boots right up for me, less than two seconds, even though it is pretty damn fat. > Everything I am about is managing to do this stuff by the simplest, > leanest means possible. If a program is written in C, then why would you > need anything other than a C compiler to build it? Can you C compiler handle C11? If so, that would be great. This one can do it, MSVC well, nope. MSVC handles C11 atomics, but not threads! GRRRRR. http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-04 01:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <upmonp$3bspi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381714 |
On 04/02/2024 00:24, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 2/3/2024 2:11 PM, bart wrote:
>> On 03/02/2024 20:31, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 2/3/2024 8:03 AM, bart wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Do you have a windows installation with a recent version of MSVC
>>> installed? Give vcpkg a go, and see how it builds things... Then
>>> automatically integrates them into MSVC. It's pretty nice and about
>>> time. ;^)
>>
>> You haven't followed by posts very well. I want to keep as far away
>> from all that stuff as possible.
>
> Okay.
>
>
>> (The last time I installed VS, it took 90 minutes. Each time it
>> started up, usually by inadvertently because of file association, it
>> took 90 seconds. On the same machine, an old one, it took 0.2 seconds
>> to build my C compiler.)
>
> It boots right up for me, less than two seconds, even though it is
> pretty damn fat.
It might be faster now on my SSD drive. However my own stuff didn't need
an SSD drive; that's part of the point of keeping things small.
>
>
>> Everything I am about is managing to do this stuff by the simplest,
>> leanest means possible. If a program is written in C, then why would
>> you need anything other than a C compiler to build it?
>
> Can you C compiler handle C11? If so, that would be great. This one can
> do it, MSVC well, nope. MSVC handles C11 atomics, but not threads! GRRRRR.
It compiles some undefined subset of C. But I haven't touched that side
of it for years. That last update of it changed the backend.
MCC is anyway now a private tool. Either programs work with it or they
don't.
But the problem being discussed at length is getting that input into the
compiler in the first place!
Everybody says use makefiles; well they don't work. They tend to be
heavily skewed towards the use of gcc. My compiler isn't gcc.
AFAIK the C standard doesn't mention gcc (nor, probably, makefiles!).
So I'm disappointed there isn't a better, simpler solution to a very,
very simple problem: what exactly goes in place of ... when building any
complete program:
cc ...
And after 100s of posts, still nobody gets it. Oh, just use an
invariably Linux-centric, gcc-centric script in a different language.
How about an OS-neutral, compiler-neutral solution that doesn't involve
a third-party language? (English - or Norwegian - accepted.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-03 17:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <upmqid$3c3hn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381715 |
On 2/3/2024 5:19 PM, bart wrote: [...] > Everybody says use makefiles; well they don't work. They tend to be > heavily skewed towards the use of gcc. My compiler isn't gcc. Shit happens. What else can I say? ;^o [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-04 14:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <6lb39k-3rh.ln1@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au> |
| In reply to | #381715 |
On 04/02/2024 12:19, bart wrote: > On 04/02/2024 00:24, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 2/3/2024 2:11 PM, bart wrote: >>> On 03/02/2024 20:31, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 2/3/2024 8:03 AM, bart wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Do you have a windows installation with a recent version of MSVC >>>> installed? Give vcpkg a go, and see how it builds things... Then >>>> automatically integrates them into MSVC. It's pretty nice and about >>>> time. ;^) >>> >>> You haven't followed by posts very well. I want to keep as far away >>> from all that stuff as possible. >> >> Okay. >> >> >>> (The last time I installed VS, it took 90 minutes. Each time it >>> started up, usually by inadvertently because of file association, it >>> took 90 seconds. On the same machine, an old one, it took 0.2 seconds >>> to build my C compiler.) >> >> It boots right up for me, less than two seconds, even though it is >> pretty damn fat. > > It might be faster now on my SSD drive. However my own stuff didn't need > an SSD drive; that's part of the point of keeping things small. > >> >> >>> Everything I am about is managing to do this stuff by the simplest, >>> leanest means possible. If a program is written in C, then why would >>> you need anything other than a C compiler to build it? >> >> Can you C compiler handle C11? If so, that would be great. This one >> can do it, MSVC well, nope. MSVC handles C11 atomics, but not threads! >> GRRRRR. > > It compiles some undefined subset of C. But I haven't touched that side > of it for years. That last update of it changed the backend. > > MCC is anyway now a private tool. Either programs work with it or they > don't. > > But the problem being discussed at length is getting that input into the > compiler in the first place! > > Everybody says use makefiles; well they don't work. They tend to be > heavily skewed towards the use of gcc. My compiler isn't gcc. > > AFAIK the C standard doesn't mention gcc (nor, probably, makefiles!). > > So I'm disappointed there isn't a better, simpler solution to a very, > very simple problem: what exactly goes in place of ... when building any > complete program: > > cc ... > > And after 100s of posts, still nobody gets it. Oh, just use an > invariably Linux-centric, gcc-centric script in a different language. > How about an OS-neutral, compiler-neutral solution that doesn't involve > a third-party language? (English - or Norwegian - accepted.) > > Oh, you mean FORTRAN-IV?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-04 20:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <uppmi2$4j0k$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381717 |
On 2/3/2024 7:07 PM, Gary R. Schmidt wrote: [...] > Oh, you mean FORTRAN-IV? FORTRON? https://youtu.be/tp8sAS1imS4 lol ;^D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-04 04:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <upn5dp$3h8ia$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381715 |
On 04/02/2024 01:19, bart wrote: > > So I'm disappointed there isn't a better, simpler solution to a very, > very simple problem: what exactly goes in place of ... when building any > complete program: > > cc ... > > And after 100s of posts, still nobody gets it. Oh, just use an > invariably Linux-centric, gcc-centric script in a different language. > How about an OS-neutral, compiler-neutral solution that doesn't involve > a third-party language? (English - or Norwegian - accepted.) > > No. I get it. Over complicated build systems which break. Very serious issue. I've had builds break on me and I'm very surprised more people haven't had the same experience and don't easily understand what you are saying. But where David Brown is right is that it is one thing to diagnose the problem, quite another to solve it. That is extremely difficult and I don't think we'll find the answer easily. But continue to discuss. -- Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-03 21:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <upn7pk$3hi85$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381724 |
On 2/3/2024 8:56 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On 04/02/2024 01:19, bart wrote: >> >> So I'm disappointed there isn't a better, simpler solution to a very, >> very simple problem: what exactly goes in place of ... when building >> any complete program: >> >> cc ... >> >> And after 100s of posts, still nobody gets it. Oh, just use an >> invariably Linux-centric, gcc-centric script in a different language. >> How about an OS-neutral, compiler-neutral solution that doesn't >> involve a third-party language? (English - or Norwegian - accepted.) >> >> > No. I get it. Over complicated build systems which break. Very serious > issue. I've had builds break on me and I'm very surprised more people > haven't had the same experience and don't easily understand what you are > saying. I have had some bad experiences, but it was all my fault. One time I forgot to install a prerequisite to a lib, that was a prerequisite for another lib. Pissed me off! Then, I have had some interesting linker errors. > > But where David Brown is right is that it is one thing to diagnose the > problem, quite another to solve it. That is extremely difficult and I > don't think we'll find the answer easily. But continue to discuss. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-03 21:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <upn823$3hi84$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381725 |
On 2/3/2024 9:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 2/3/2024 8:56 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On 04/02/2024 01:19, bart wrote: >>> >>> So I'm disappointed there isn't a better, simpler solution to a very, >>> very simple problem: what exactly goes in place of ... when building >>> any complete program: >>> >>> cc ... >>> >>> And after 100s of posts, still nobody gets it. Oh, just use an >>> invariably Linux-centric, gcc-centric script in a different language. >>> How about an OS-neutral, compiler-neutral solution that doesn't >>> involve a third-party language? (English - or Norwegian - accepted.) >>> >>> >> No. I get it. Over complicated build systems which break. Very serious >> issue. I've had builds break on me and I'm very surprised more people >> haven't had the same experience and don't easily understand what you >> are saying. > > I have had some bad experiences, but it was all my fault. One time I > forgot to install a prerequisite to a lib, that was a prerequisite for > another lib. Pissed me off! Then, I have had some interesting linker > errors. A couple of decades a go, I remember having a linker issue. I was banging my head against the wall saying why won't this god damn bastard link! Turns out that I forgot that I had altered one of the makefiles to use a directory I was using for experiments. Totally forgot about it. Uughhhh, damn it. Anyway, I finally fixed it in the makefile, and everything linked up fine, and passed all unit tests. Grrr! > > > >> >> But where David Brown is right is that it is one thing to diagnose the >> problem, quite another to solve it. That is extremely difficult and I >> don't think we'll find the answer easily. But continue to discuss. >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-04 13:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <upo0s7$3lbbl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381724 |
On 04/02/2024 05:56, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On 04/02/2024 01:19, bart wrote: >> >> So I'm disappointed there isn't a better, simpler solution to a very, >> very simple problem: what exactly goes in place of ... when building >> any complete program: >> > No. I get it. Over complicated build systems which break. Very serious > issue. I've had builds break on me and I'm very surprised more people > haven't had the same experience and don't easily understand what you are > saying. > > But where David Brown is right is that it is one thing to diagnose the > problem, quite another to solve it. That is extremely difficult and I > don't think we'll find the answer easily. But continue to discuss. > I'm glad you think I am right - and I agree that as a general point, solving issues is usually harder than diagnosing them. But I did not say anything remotely like that in any posts, as far as I am aware. In particular, I am not aware of any "diagnosis" of fundamental issues with build tools that need solving - certainly not "solving" by Bart's solution. (I am aware that /Bart/ has trouble using common tools, and that his solution might help /him/ - which is fine, and I wish him luck with it for fixing his own issues.) Some people might use tools badly, and some people publish projects where others find the builds difficult on different systems. That's a matter of use, not the tools - others find they work fine. (No tool is perfect, of course, and there's always scope for improvement.) So if you want to use my name, I'd rather you did it in reference to things I have actually said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-04 15:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <upobnq$3n48o$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381734 |
On 04/02/2024 12:44, David Brown wrote: > On 04/02/2024 05:56, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On 04/02/2024 01:19, bart wrote: >>> >>> So I'm disappointed there isn't a better, simpler solution to a very, >>> very simple problem: what exactly goes in place of ... when building >>> any complete program: >>> > >> No. I get it. Over complicated build systems which break. Very serious >> issue. I've had builds break on me and I'm very surprised more people >> haven't had the same experience and don't easily understand what you >> are saying. >> >> But where David Brown is right is that it is one thing to diagnose the >> problem, quite another to solve it. That is extremely difficult and I >> don't think we'll find the answer easily. But continue to discuss. >> > > I'm glad you think I am right - and I agree that as a general point, > solving issues is usually harder than diagnosing them. But I did not > say anything remotely like that in any posts, as far as I am aware. > > In particular, I am not aware of any "diagnosis" of fundamental issues > with build tools that need solving - certainly not "solving" by Bart's > solution. (I am aware that /Bart/ has trouble using common tools, and > that his solution might help /him/ - which is fine, and I wish him luck > with it for fixing his own issues.) Some people might use tools badly, > and some people publish projects where others find the builds difficult > on different systems. That's a matter of use, not the tools - others > find they work fine. (No tool is perfect, of course, and there's always > scope for improvement.) > > So if you want to use my name, I'd rather you did it in reference to > things I have actually said. > You've said repeatedly and at great length that Bart's proposed solutions won't work. You haven't actually admitted that he has diagnosed a problem which needs to be solved and maybe I should have made that clearer. Where you're right is that writing a better build system than make is hard. Bart referenced Norwegian, which obviously meant you, and so I didn't introduce your name. -- Check out Basic Algorithms and my other books: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-04 18:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <upohdp$3o7ig$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381742 |
On 04/02/2024 16:50, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On 04/02/2024 12:44, David Brown wrote: >> On 04/02/2024 05:56, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On 04/02/2024 01:19, bart wrote: >>>> >>>> So I'm disappointed there isn't a better, simpler solution to a >>>> very, very simple problem: what exactly goes in place of ... when >>>> building any complete program: >>>> >> >>> No. I get it. Over complicated build systems which break. Very >>> serious issue. I've had builds break on me and I'm very surprised >>> more people haven't had the same experience and don't easily >>> understand what you are saying. >>> >>> But where David Brown is right is that it is one thing to diagnose >>> the problem, quite another to solve it. That is extremely difficult >>> and I don't think we'll find the answer easily. But continue to discuss. >>> >> >> I'm glad you think I am right - and I agree that as a general point, >> solving issues is usually harder than diagnosing them. But I did not >> say anything remotely like that in any posts, as far as I am aware. >> >> In particular, I am not aware of any "diagnosis" of fundamental issues >> with build tools that need solving - certainly not "solving" by Bart's >> solution. (I am aware that /Bart/ has trouble using common tools, and >> that his solution might help /him/ - which is fine, and I wish him >> luck with it for fixing his own issues.) Some people might use tools >> badly, and some people publish projects where others find the builds >> difficult on different systems. That's a matter of use, not the tools >> - others find they work fine. (No tool is perfect, of course, and >> there's always scope for improvement.) >> >> So if you want to use my name, I'd rather you did it in reference to >> things I have actually said. >> > > You've said repeatedly and at great length that Bart's proposed > solutions won't work. No, I have said repeatedly that it would not work for /me/. > You haven't actually admitted that he has > diagnosed a problem which needs to be solved Why would I "admit" something I don't believe? > and maybe I should have > made that clearer. It's not a matter of clarity - you said explicitly and clearly that I had talked about "diagnosing the problem". > Where you're right is that writing a better build > system than make is hard. Bart referenced Norwegian, which obviously > meant you, and so I didn't introduce your name. > I think Bart referenced Norwegian as something of a joke, as a pun on programming languages and human languages and a reference to the wandering topics we've had here recently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-04 14:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <upp4g4$3sf80$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381751 |
On 2/4/2024 9:27 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 04/02/2024 16:50, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On 04/02/2024 12:44, David Brown wrote: >>> On 04/02/2024 05:56, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> On 04/02/2024 01:19, bart wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So I'm disappointed there isn't a better, simpler solution to a >>>>> very, very simple problem: what exactly goes in place of ... when >>>>> building any complete program: >>>>> >>> >>>> No. I get it. Over complicated build systems which break. Very >>>> serious issue. I've had builds break on me and I'm very surprised >>>> more people haven't had the same experience and don't easily >>>> understand what you are saying. >>>> >>>> But where David Brown is right is that it is one thing to diagnose >>>> the problem, quite another to solve it. That is extremely difficult >>>> and I don't think we'll find the answer easily. But continue to >>>> discuss. >>>> >>> >>> I'm glad you think I am right - and I agree that as a general point, >>> solving issues is usually harder than diagnosing them. But I did not >>> say anything remotely like that in any posts, as far as I am aware. >>> >>> In particular, I am not aware of any "diagnosis" of fundamental >>> issues with build tools that need solving - certainly not "solving" >>> by Bart's solution. (I am aware that /Bart/ has trouble using common >>> tools, and that his solution might help /him/ - which is fine, and I >>> wish him luck with it for fixing his own issues.) Some people might >>> use tools badly, and some people publish projects where others find >>> the builds difficult on different systems. That's a matter of use, >>> not the tools - others find they work fine. (No tool is perfect, of >>> course, and there's always scope for improvement.) >>> >>> So if you want to use my name, I'd rather you did it in reference to >>> things I have actually said. >>> >> >> You've said repeatedly and at great length that Bart's proposed >> solutions won't work. > > No, I have said repeatedly that it would not work for /me/. I asked Bart about C11 support. He said something akin to his system does not support it. So, his system would not work for me. :^) [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-05 17:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ns22silekslfmccm81b1dtl5pt6nha51on@dim53.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #381715 |
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 01:19:53 +0000, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > Everybody says use makefiles; well they don't work. They tend to be > heavily skewed towards the use of gcc. My compiler isn't gcc. By default a lot of builtin "implicit rules" determine which program to use to make a .o from a .c etc. etc., and yes, that is GCC-centric. However, it is possible to remove all of those rules by calling make as make -rR meaning: -r, --no-builtin-rules -R, --no-builtin-variables , or by writing an empty .SUFFIXES: section in the Makefile. Then, provide an include file "myrules.mk" with your own rules. <https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Old_002dFashioned-Suffix-Rules> Something like : %.o : %.c mcc $< -o $@ etc., and include that in your Makefile with include myrules.mk <https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Including-Other-Makefiles> I apologize in advance if I missed a post in this huge thread that already hinted you for that. -- Regards, Kees Nuyt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-05 09:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87bk8ultjz.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #381829 |
Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> writes:
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 01:19:53 +0000, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> Everybody says use makefiles; well they don't work. They tend to be
>> heavily skewed towards the use of gcc. My compiler isn't gcc.
>
> By default a lot of builtin "implicit rules" determine which
> program to use to make a .o from a .c etc. etc., and yes, that
> is GCC-centric.
Not really. "make" is older than gcc, and GNU make was first released
about a year after the initial release of gcc.
Even modern GNU is not gcc-specific. It assumes by default that the C
compiler is called "cc" (which resolves to "gcc" on many systems, but it
doesn't have to).
Rather gcc mimics the user interface of earlier UNIX C compilers.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-05 19:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XpawN.303218$7sbb.222881@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #381829 |
Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> writes:
>On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 01:19:53 +0000, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> Everybody says use makefiles; well they don't work. They tend to be
>> heavily skewed towards the use of gcc. My compiler isn't gcc.
>
>By default a lot of builtin "implicit rules" determine which
>program to use to make a .o from a .c etc. etc., and yes, that
>is GCC-centric.
I wouldn't call them GCC-centric, for the most it is POSIX-centric,
i.e.
CC = cc
Although there is
CXX = g++
The built-in recipes are pretty generic.
%.o: %.c
# recipe to execute (built-in):
$(COMPILE.c) $(OUTPUT_OPTION) $<
%.cc:
%: %.cc
# recipe to execute (built-in):
$(LINK.cc) $^ $(LOADLIBES) $(LDLIBS) -o $@
%.o: %.cc
# recipe to execute (built-in):
$(COMPILE.cc) $(OUTPUT_OPTION) $<
%.C:
%: %.C
# recipe to execute (built-in):
$(LINK.C) $^ $(LOADLIBES) $(LDLIBS) -o $@
%.o: %.C
# recipe to execute (built-in):
$(COMPILE.C) $(OUTPUT_OPTION) $<
%.cpp:
%: %.cpp
# recipe to execute (built-in):
$(LINK.cpp) $^ $(LOADLIBES) $(LDLIBS) -o $@
%.o: %.cpp
# recipe to execute (built-in):
$(COMPILE.cpp) $(OUTPUT_OPTION) $<
You can always override the variable on the make command line
$ make CC=bcc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-03 12:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <upm7na$3943m$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381683 |
On 2/3/2024 7:44 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On 03/02/2024 13:52, David Brown wrote: >> On 03/02/2024 06:52, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On 02/02/2024 22:12, bart wrote: [...] > On Windows you've got the fire up Visual Studio, and set up a project > file. Not true. First of all you need to download MSVC first, its a fat one. Fwiw, I have used several different compilers on Windows over the years. Iirc, vcpkg uses some mingw, clang, or whatever compiler is needs to build its packages from source... > And then you've gt to fiddle with it to enable the standard > library. And then it will demand you include "stdafx.h" and you've got > to fiddle with it a bit more to sop it asking for that. Then, whilst you > will get an executable, when you launch it from the IDE, the output > window will disappear before you can read it. And you have to fiddle > with it a bit more. It's much less convenient. > > On the other had, if you want a GUI, the Windows system is all set up > for you and you just have to call the right functions. On Unix you have > to configure some sort of front end to X, there's a lot more messing > about, and the GUI elements aren't consistent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-04 06:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <upnbnd$3i0cg$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #381683 |
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 15:44:29 +0000, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On the other had, if you want a GUI, the Windows system is all set up > for you and you just have to call the right functions. Except the Win32 GUI functions are pretty low-level, so everybody uses some kind of toolkit. Only it’s not clear which toolkit is Microsoft’s official recommendation this week--is it MAUI? Dotnet? WinForms? Something else I haven’t even heard of?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web