Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #172151 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-08-13 14:53 +0100 |
| Last post | 2023-08-29 04:43 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 306 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-13 14:53 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-13 21:45 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-13 23:43 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-14 01:16 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-14 00:46 +0000
Re: Build Systems gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-08-14 01:05 +0000
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 18:59 -0700
Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-08-14 02:44 +0000
Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 20:53 -0700
Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) Matthew Ernisse <matt@going-flying.com> - 2023-08-17 22:00 +0000
Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-18 03:51 -0700
Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 04:58 -0700
Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) Matthew Ernisse <matt@going-flying.com> - 2023-08-18 13:02 +0000
Re: Dev on Windoze Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-08-20 16:14 +0300
Re: Dev on Windoze "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 11:05 -0700
Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:16 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-14 04:03 +0000
Re: Build Systems gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-08-14 10:14 +0000
Re: Build Systems Karl Meyer <karlmeyer25@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 05:16 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-14 10:35 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-14 15:06 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-14 14:58 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-14 15:49 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-14 18:00 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 11:00 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 11:40 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 15:21 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 16:11 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-15 15:39 +0000
Re: Build Systems MJ OS_EXAMINE <m6502x64@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 08:58 -0700
Re: Build Systems gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-08-15 16:44 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 20:00 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 18:03 +0200
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-15 17:01 +0000
Re: Build Systems gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-08-15 17:07 +0000
Re: Build Systems Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-08-15 23:17 +0300
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 22:57 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 18:49 +0100
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 13:13 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 23:09 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 23:36 +0100
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 15:55 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 01:05 +0100
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-16 01:39 +0000
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-16 11:37 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 12:15 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-16 15:16 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 16:34 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 18:07 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-16 17:43 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 18:51 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-16 21:26 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 22:25 +0100
Re: Build Systems Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 00:15 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-17 01:02 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-17 02:56 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-17 11:21 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-17 21:26 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-17 23:40 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-19 00:43 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-17 15:45 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-18 00:24 +0100
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 17:46 -0700
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 18:29 -0700
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 19:13 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-18 14:55 +0200
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 14:34 -0700
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 14:34 -0700
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 15:19 -0700
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 15:43 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-19 13:19 +0200
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 20:56 -0700
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 20:57 -0700
Re: Build Systems "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-08-27 00:01 -0700
Re: Build Systems candycane@f172.n1.z21.fsxnet (candycane) - 2023-08-27 03:34 +1300
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-27 08:32 +0000
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-27 16:58 +0200
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 11:58 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-27 16:52 +0200
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 11:59 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-18 01:49 +0000
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 02:19 -0700
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-19 01:21 +0100
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 18:36 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-19 13:51 +0200
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 05:35 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 00:35 -0700
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 09:54 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 12:30 -0700
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 13:44 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 17:58 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 02:28 +0100
Re: Build Systems Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 00:12 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 11:13 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 11:36 +0100
Re: Build Systems Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 13:37 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 13:51 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-22 14:51 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 17:19 +0100
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 09:30 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 17:51 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-22 16:36 +0000
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-22 16:50 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 18:06 +0100
Re: Build Systems kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-08-22 20:46 +0000
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 12:47 -0700
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 21:06 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-22 17:04 +0000
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-20 00:10 +0100
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 17:50 -0700
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-20 20:48 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-20 22:07 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-21 00:51 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 01:26 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 02:02 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 02:07 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-21 03:13 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 11:09 +0100
Re: Build Systems Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 13:12 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 14:12 +0100
Re: Build Systems Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 14:47 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 19:06 +0100
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-21 18:40 +0000
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 14:39 -0700
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 12:23 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 21:55 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-22 01:31 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 02:18 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-22 14:41 +0000
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 08:03 -0700
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-22 15:33 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 16:20 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-22 15:40 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 17:03 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-23 03:18 +0100
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 19:51 -0700
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-25 02:23 +0100
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 21:24 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-25 11:31 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-25 10:53 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-25 13:55 +0200
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-25 13:54 +0000
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-25 20:55 +0100
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 20:49 -0700
Re: Build Systems Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 08:42 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-23 11:37 +0100
Re: Build Systems Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-08-23 14:02 +0300
Re: Build Systems Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 15:02 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-25 02:17 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-23 14:28 +0100
Re: Build Systems Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-08-23 19:54 +0300
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-23 19:33 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-23 21:13 +0100
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 23:09 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-24 15:32 +0200
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-24 15:51 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-24 18:58 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-24 18:29 +0000
Re: Build Systems vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2023-08-24 20:41 +0000
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-24 23:08 +0000
Re: Build Systems Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2023-08-25 17:22 +0100
Re: Build Systems Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 16:39 +0000
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-25 16:54 +0000
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-25 17:02 +0000
Re: Build Systems Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2023-08-25 19:21 +0100
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-25 18:56 +0000
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 11:44 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-24 18:47 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-24 21:20 +0100
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-24 22:59 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-25 02:18 +0100
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 20:17 -0700
Re: Build Systems Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-08-24 16:30 +0300
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-23 17:43 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-23 20:15 +0100
Re: Build Systems Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-08-26 18:19 +0300
Re: Build Systems Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-26 21:47 -0700
Re: Build Systems Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-08-28 11:31 +0300
Re: Build Systems Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-28 06:48 -0700
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-25 02:11 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-25 11:27 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-25 13:52 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-25 15:40 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-25 20:04 +0200
Re: Build Systems candycane@f172.n1.z21.fsxnet (candycane) - 2023-08-26 00:47 +1300
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-25 21:26 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-26 01:42 +0100
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-27 01:16 +0100
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-25 05:51 +0000
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 23:17 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-21 02:52 +0000
Re: Build Systems vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2023-08-21 03:02 +0000
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-21 06:05 +0000
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-21 11:32 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-19 14:42 +0000
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 08:09 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-19 15:59 +0000
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 09:38 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-19 18:16 +0000
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-19 21:02 +0000
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 14:13 -0700
Re: Build Systems Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2023-08-19 19:10 +0000
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-19 21:00 +0000
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 14:22 -0700
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 17:56 -0700
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 18:13 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-20 14:13 +0200
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 06:05 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-20 16:15 +0200
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 09:25 -0700
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 13:35 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-21 14:43 +0200
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 05:52 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 14:30 +0100
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 15:18 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 23:26 +0100
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:11 -0700
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 14:47 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-21 23:20 +0100
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 15:45 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-22 00:57 +0100
Re: Build Systems vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2023-08-20 14:24 +0000
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 09:09 -0700
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-20 17:28 +0000
Re: Build Systems Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-19 20:26 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-18 14:50 +0200
Re: Build Systems Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2023-08-18 13:19 +0000
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-17 17:16 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-17 17:24 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-18 15:32 +0200
Re: Build Systems Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-18 07:22 -0700
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 07:48 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-18 17:11 +0200
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 08:58 -0700
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 16:32 -0700
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 04:02 -0700
Re: Build Systems "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 12:26 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-19 13:56 +0200
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 05:43 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-16 11:23 +0200
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 02:34 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-16 12:52 +0200
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 03:56 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-16 13:23 +0200
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 12:55 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-17 15:52 +0200
Re: Build Systems Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-17 02:14 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-17 15:56 +0200
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-17 16:01 +0000
Re: Build Systems Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-17 09:07 -0700
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-17 16:20 +0000
Re: Build Systems Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-17 09:31 -0700
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-17 17:24 +0000
Re: Build Systems Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-08-19 14:06 +0300
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 04:39 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-19 16:46 +0200
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-19 16:00 +0000
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-20 14:15 +0200
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 07:25 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-20 18:03 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-17 19:51 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-18 16:44 +0200
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 08:21 -0700
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-18 15:39 +0000
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-18 17:47 +0200
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 10:49 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-19 15:16 +0200
Re: Build Systems bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 07:58 -0700
Re: Build Systems Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-08-19 09:05 -0700
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 12:48 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 21:36 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 21:43 +0100
Re: Build Systems Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 14:07 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-16 12:46 +0200
Really? (Was: Build Systems) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-08-15 13:15 +0000
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 09:54 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 11:07 +0100
Re: Build Systems Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-08-15 03:42 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 12:14 +0100
Re: Build Systems Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-08-15 05:53 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 15:57 +0100
Re: Build Systems Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-08-15 09:10 -0700
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-14 14:49 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-14 14:39 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 11:08 +0200
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 02:56 -0700
Re: Build Systems Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-08-15 03:23 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 11:45 +0100
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 03:53 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 13:15 +0100
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 06:22 -0700
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 01:20 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-16 12:57 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 12:19 +0100
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-16 15:18 +0200
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 18:12 +0100
Re: Build Systems Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-16 18:18 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-16 17:45 +0000
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 15:30 +0200
Re: Build Systems Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 06:58 -0700
Re: Build Systems Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-15 14:06 +0000
Re: Build Systems David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 17:08 +0200
Re: Build Systems Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-15 21:46 +0100
Re: Build Systems scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-14 15:48 +0000
Re: Build Systems Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 12:16 -0700
Re: Build Systems Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-29 04:43 -0700
Page 8 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 16 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-25 13:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uca4rq$uqv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172747 |
On 25/08/2023 11:53, Bart wrote: > On 25/08/2023 02:23, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/22/2023 7:18 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>>>> (I'm not replying to your other points as you are not receptive to >>>>> what I >>>>> am trying to do. You are just shrugging your shoulders at Windows. >>>>> So is >>>>> nearly everyone. You are part of the problem. >>>> >>>> What should I do "at Windows". You seem to think I should care about >>>> how easily Unix/Linux software builds on it. Why should I? >>> >>> Install windows, download MSVC; download vcpkg; okay, search vcpkg for >>> your >> >> /Buy/ and install windows. I don't think it's now free is it? > > > Ok, you seem to have a problem with paying for certain types of > software, but presumably are OK with paying for hardware. I would certainly have a problem paying for software I don't want, and I don't believe Ben actually /wants/ to have Windows installed. It's fair enough IMHO to pay a reasonable amount for software you want or need - just like paying for anything else. > > The cheapest desktop PC I could find in the UK with a minute or two's > search was £250 ($300?). It includes Windows 11. > > Or you can try a second-hand PC, from a proper retailer, from £40 (I > don't know how Windows licensing works on those). > > My point is that the cost, whatever it is, isn't extortionate. And I > will pay it to ensure something that works out-of-the-box and does not > need installing. > > I would pay for Linux too if only I could find a machine that had it! > And I don't mean that weird hybrid called WSL. (I have bought a > second-hand laptop with Linux: I wasn't impressed.) > There are plenty of machines available with Linux pre-installed, but they are rarely found in computer shops (excluding Chromebooks, as the Linux base is well hidden on most of these). A bit of googling should turn up results quite quickly. But usually installing Linux is pretty simple, and there are so many distros to choose from, so most users install it themselves unless they are looking for supported Linux servers or workstations (which have a rather different level of budget). The way marketing commercial software works, it is actually cheaper for manufacturers to sell you machines with Windows and a pile of crapware than to sell you an empty machine or one with free software installed. Anti-virus companies, MS Office, and others pay the manufacturer to install time-limited versions of their software with pop-up "reminders" to con less knowledgeable users into paying subscriptions that they are told they need.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-25 13:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Fo2GM.463338$U3w1.5734@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #172747 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 25/08/2023 02:23, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/22/2023 7:18 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>>>> (I'm not replying to your other points as you are not receptive to what I >>>>> am trying to do. You are just shrugging your shoulders at Windows. So is >>>>> nearly everyone. You are part of the problem. >>>> >>>> What should I do "at Windows". You seem to think I should care about >>>> how easily Unix/Linux software builds on it. Why should I? >>> >>> Install windows, download MSVC; download vcpkg; okay, search vcpkg for >>> your >> >> /Buy/ and install windows. I don't think it's now free is it? > > >Ok, you seem to have a problem with paying for certain types of >software, but presumably are OK with paying for hardware. Perhaps he doesn't want windows, particuarly for such a lame reason.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-25 20:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87jztiq4li.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #172747 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 25/08/2023 02:23, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/22/2023 7:18 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>>>> (I'm not replying to your other points as you are not receptive to what I >>>>> am trying to do. You are just shrugging your shoulders at Windows. So is >>>>> nearly everyone. You are part of the problem. >>>> >>>> What should I do "at Windows". You seem to think I should care about >>>> how easily Unix/Linux software builds on it. Why should I? >>> >>> Install windows, download MSVC; download vcpkg; okay, search vcpkg for >>> your >> /Buy/ and install windows. I don't think it's now free is it? > > Ok, you seem to have a problem with paying for certain types of > software, No sane person would have a different attitude, but you jumped to the conclusion that I have a problem with paying for Windows. I don't. If I needed it, I'd buy it. > but presumably are OK with paying for hardware. False dichotomy. I also have a problem with paying for certain types of hardware. I hope you do to. > The cheapest desktop PC I could find in the UK with a minute or two's > search was £250 ($300?). It includes Windows 11. Eh? Are you suggesting someone should buy a cheap PC to get Windows 11. You can't be. The simplest way is to buy from MS -- about £43. That's what I'd do if I wanted to buy it. > My point is that the cost, whatever it is, isn't extortionate. And my point was simply that there /is/ a cost, and that "install Windows" is therefor a slightly misleading instruction. However, if, as has been suggested, an unregistered copy is usable for most things, I might have jumped the gun on that. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-25 20:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0fd7f6ed-c1df-4740-9e83-6f3f3c50f06cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #172782 |
On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 20:55:52 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Bart <b...@freeuk.com> writes: > > > On 25/08/2023 02:23, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.t...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >>> On 8/22/2023 7:18 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>>> Bart <b...@freeuk.com> writes: > >> > >>>>> (I'm not replying to your other points as you are not receptive to what I > >>>>> am trying to do. You are just shrugging your shoulders at Windows. So is > >>>>> nearly everyone. You are part of the problem. > >>>> > >>>> What should I do "at Windows". You seem to think I should care about > >>>> how easily Unix/Linux software builds on it. Why should I? > >>> > >>> Install windows, download MSVC; download vcpkg; okay, search vcpkg for > >>> your > >> /Buy/ and install windows. I don't think it's now free is it? > > > > Ok, you seem to have a problem with paying for certain types of > > software, > No sane person would have a different attitude, but you jumped to the > conclusion that I have a problem with paying for Windows. I don't. If > I needed it, I'd buy it. > It's hard to buy a Linux machine. Often it's easier and even cheaper to just buy a Windows box and delete Windows. But the problem with something like Windows is that if you are in my situation, for example, you need it. There is no choice. So that's an uncomfortable situation to be in. The supplier can gouge. > > > but presumably are OK with paying for hardware. > False dichotomy. I also have a problem with paying for certain types > of hardware. I hope you do to. > > The cheapest desktop PC I could find in the UK with a minute or two's > > search was £250 ($300?). It includes Windows 11. > Eh? Are you suggesting someone should buy a cheap PC to get Windows > 11. You can't be. The simplest way is to buy from MS -- about £43. > That's what I'd do if I wanted to buy it. > > My point is that the cost, whatever it is, isn't extortionate. > And my point was simply that there /is/ a cost, and that "install > Windows" is therefor a slightly misleading instruction. However, if, as > has been suggested, an unregistered copy is usable for most things, I > might have jumped the gun on that. > Microsoft make most of their money from the Office suite and other services to businesses. They're not trying to get a lot for Windows itself, fortunately. Though 43 pounds is still quite a bit of money for something which sells in the millions and has a marginal cost of zero. Since most people who use Windows will use it every day, it's really worth registering.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 08:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uc4d9s$2r6mr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172688 |
On 23/08/2023 03:18, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> On 22/08/2023 01:31, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >>>> If there's anything extra, then that can be explained. This can be put into >>>> a Readme or Install or Build text file. >>> Sounds simple. What does this simple solution look like for a68g? I'll >>> send it to the authors if you don't want to do that yourself. >>> >> >> Have a look at the post I made 21-08-23 14:12 BST, and follow-on ones, >> where I explore what happens when a build process provides such >> information. > > I'll look if you provide the message ID. That's how Usenet posts are > cited. It was Message-ID: <ubvnsg$1tkml$1@dont-email.me> > >> In that case, 1000s of lines of 'configure' scripts and numerous makefiles >> could be reduced to a 6-line build script, even if the lines are somewhat >> long. >> >> That is unusual, but note that this was version 9 of that project; that >> info was not present on version 6. > > That's not an Algol 68G version number. You have switched horses yet > again. > >> (I'm not replying to your other points as you are not receptive to what I >> am trying to do. You are just shrugging your shoulders at Windows. So is >> nearly everyone. You are part of the problem. > > What should I do "at Windows". You seem to think I should care about > how easily Unix/Linux software builds on it. Why should I? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 11:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uc4nh5$2su9b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172691 |
On 23/08/2023 08:42, Richard Harnden wrote: > On 23/08/2023 03:18, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> On 22/08/2023 01:31, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> >>>>> If there's anything extra, then that can be explained. This can be >>>>> put into >>>>> a Readme or Install or Build text file. >>>> Sounds simple. What does this simple solution look like for a68g? >>>> I'll >>>> send it to the authors if you don't want to do that yourself. >>>> >>> >>> Have a look at the post I made 21-08-23 14:12 BST, and follow-on ones, >>> where I explore what happens when a build process provides such >>> information. >> >> I'll look if you provide the message ID. That's how Usenet posts are >> cited. > > It was Message-ID: <ubvnsg$1tkml$1@dont-email.me> OK, I give up. I spent an interesting few minutes figuring out what the hell you're suppose to do with that link. Loads of information on how to obtain a message-id, but how do you turn that message-id into the actual message?! Googlegroups doesn't want to know (I think it discovered your post!). Google can't find anything. There's no obvious option in my Thunderbird program. Prepending 'news://' and feeding it to a browser didn't help. I would normally give a link to a Googlegroups version, but that takes some effort and it will show a hacked version of my post. Since I normally display posts in linear order, ordered by date, I thought the date and time would be enough. Obviously not. (It won't cut any ice anyway. BB is determined to misunderstand me and to find issue with everything I'm trying to do. He's accused me of being a politician; he's more like a prosecuting lawyer!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 14:02 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20230823140250.b59a39d6b2b1f90f396fc3e4@g{oogle}mail.com> |
| In reply to | #172693 |
Bart: > Richard Harnden: > > > It was Message-ID: <ubvnsg$1tkml$1@dont-email.me> > > OK, I give up. I spent an interesting few minutes figuring > out what the hell you're suppose to do with that link. > > Loads of information on how to obtain a message-id, but > how do you turn that message-id into the actual message?! You either search by it within your newsreader, or using external tools, such as al.howardknight.net. The message above is archived at: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=169278852700 -- () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 15:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uc53hn$2uqlg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172694 |
On 23/08/2023 12:02, Anton Shepelev wrote: > Bart: >> Richard Harnden: >> >>> It was Message-ID: <ubvnsg$1tkml$1@dont-email.me> >> >> OK, I give up. I spent an interesting few minutes figuring >> out what the hell you're suppose to do with that link. >> >> Loads of information on how to obtain a message-id, but >> how do you turn that message-id into the actual message?! > > You either search by it within your newsreader, or using > external tools, such as al.howardknight.net. The message > above is archived at: > > http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=169278852700 > Google Groups used to have an advanced-search page where you could search for message-ids, but, in their quest to make GG compeletly useless, they removed it. <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c/c/YgV-dQI9MZ0/m/8A6EfUR-BwAJ>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-25 02:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87a5ufrkcv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #172691 |
Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> writes: > On 23/08/2023 03:18, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> On 22/08/2023 01:31, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> >>>>> If there's anything extra, then that can be explained. This can be put into >>>>> a Readme or Install or Build text file. >>>> Sounds simple. What does this simple solution look like for a68g? I'll >>>> send it to the authors if you don't want to do that yourself. >>>> >>> >>> Have a look at the post I made 21-08-23 14:12 BST, and follow-on ones, >>> where I explore what happens when a build process provides such >>> information. >> I'll look if you provide the message ID. That's how Usenet posts are >> cited. > > It was Message-ID: <ubvnsg$1tkml$1@dont-email.me> Thank you. I'm not sure I have time now. Life has intervened... -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 14:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uc51ia$2ug61$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172688 |
On 23/08/2023 03:18, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> On 22/08/2023 01:31, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >>>> If there's anything extra, then that can be explained. This can be put into >>>> a Readme or Install or Build text file. >>> Sounds simple. What does this simple solution look like for a68g? I'll >>> send it to the authors if you don't want to do that yourself. >>> >> >> Have a look at the post I made 21-08-23 14:12 BST, and follow-on ones, >> where I explore what happens when a build process provides such >> information. > > I'll look if you provide the message ID. That's how Usenet posts are > cited. > >> In that case, 1000s of lines of 'configure' scripts and numerous makefiles >> could be reduced to a 6-line build script, even if the lines are somewhat >> long. >> >> That is unusual, but note that this was version 9 of that project; that >> info was not present on version 6. > > That's not an Algol 68G version number. You have switched horses yet > again. > >> (I'm not replying to your other points as you are not receptive to what I >> am trying to do. You are just shrugging your shoulders at Windows. So is >> nearly everyone. You are part of the problem. > > What should I do "at Windows". You seem to think I should care about > how easily Unix/Linux software builds on it. Why should I? > At least you appear to believe me when I say that makefiles on Windows are very often troublesome. Since some here are trying to say that it's purely due to my incompetence. But you also say that I should put on my cape and single-handedly fix all the myriad projects where it could be handled better. So you acknowledge that some apps build poorly on Windows, but are not surprised, and also don't appear to care since you don't use Windows. Then I'm not quite sure why you're taking part in this thread. It seems to be one giant <shrug>. It's my turn then not to be surprised that Linux is so highly favoured in build systems if your attitude is typical but Windows gets the second or third class treatment: - Give it its own makefile (which of course doesn't work), or a dozen compiler-specific makefiles - Apply CMake (I don't know if that's a solution; I see it as another thing to go wrong!) - Use sln/vcxproj files instead so that people must use VS products - Supply BAT files (which might then assume a MSVC installation) - Do nothing; just tell people to use or install enough of Linux to go the ./configure route The projects I have managed to build were via a method that's simpler than all that and that works or that can be trivially adapted, because it's so transparent, on either kind of OS. This is hint that maybe build methods can gravitate towards such approaches (and FGS get rid of autoconf files). But you seem to think I should personally take charge of every such project on the planet, and then maintain it for every, even though they are not my projects. The latter is nonsensical and, given the reaction in this thread, the former is not going to change either. Build systems will get more complex and impenetrable, not simpler and more transparent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 19:54 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20230823195415.19d4c01e0cb2ca57faf92c07@g{oogle}mail.com> |
| In reply to | #172695 |
Bart quoth: > Build systems will get more complex and impenetrable, not > simpler and more transparent. Bart's law. Borland and Free Pascal compilers do not require a separate build system (nor a project file, or solution) to build a large modular program. The modern reliance on super compicated tools for simple tasks is horrifying. It makes the programmer feel as a servant rathern than a demiurge. -- () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 19:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uc5ft2$311jt$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172701 |
On 23/08/2023 18:54, Anton Shepelev wrote: > Bart quoth: > >> Build systems will get more complex and impenetrable, not >> simpler and more transparent. > > Bart's law. > > Borland and Free Pascal compilers do not require a separate > build system (nor a project file, or solution) to build a > large modular program. The modern reliance on super > compicated tools for simple tasks is horrifying. It makes > the programmer feel as a servant rathern than a demiurge. > The version of "make" that I used with DOS and Windows for about a decade came with Borland Pascal. (It might even have been Turbo Pascal, before the renaming.) Mostly I used the IDE for building Pascal projects, rather than a makefile. I used "make" primarily for assembly code in those days.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 21:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uc5p8k$330u9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172703 |
On 23/08/2023 18:33, David Brown wrote: > On 23/08/2023 18:54, Anton Shepelev wrote: >> Bart quoth: >> >>> Build systems will get more complex and impenetrable, not >>> simpler and more transparent. >> >> Bart's law. >> >> Borland and Free Pascal compilers do not require a separate >> build system (nor a project file, or solution) to build a >> large modular program. The modern reliance on super >> compicated tools for simple tasks is horrifying. It makes >> the programmer feel as a servant rathern than a demiurge. >> > > The version of "make" that I used with DOS and Windows for about a > decade came with Borland Pascal. (It might even have been Turbo Pascal, > before the renaming.) > > Mostly I used the IDE for building Pascal projects, rather than a > makefile. I used "make" primarily for assembly code in those days. The first language product I ever timed was an assembler running on an 8-bit Z80 with a 2.5Mhz clock. Its throughput was nearly 2K lines per second (memory-to-memory). That's interesting because the largest program you could write was 64KB, but in practice half that to allow space for the OS, data, video memory etc. That means it couldn't take more than 16 seconds (or 10 seconds on 4Mhz device) to assemble all the code of the program. So, I wonder what benefit a 'make' program would provide. Given that, on a floppy system, you would need to load make, load the makefile, access the directory info for each ASM file to check compilation times, which all cuts into any potential savings of avoiding loading some ASM files. In any case, projects were simple enough that you were well aware of any dependencies yourself. So 'make' (which I'd never used and perhaps had never heard of), was useless. Better to direct my efforts at resident assemblers and compilers to minimise disk activity. (Would 'make' have invoked the assembler separately for each source needing compiling?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 23:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dcb372b8-d473-4ed6-b5b1-4040feaf7ba8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #172709 |
On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 21:13:24 UTC+1, Bart wrote: > On 23/08/2023 18:33, David Brown wrote: > > On 23/08/2023 18:54, Anton Shepelev wrote: > >> Bart quoth: > >> > >>> Build systems will get more complex and impenetrable, not > >>> simpler and more transparent. > >> > >> Bart's law. > >> > >> Borland and Free Pascal compilers do not require a separate > >> build system (nor a project file, or solution) to build a > >> large modular program. The modern reliance on super > >> compicated tools for simple tasks is horrifying. It makes > >> the programmer feel as a servant rathern than a demiurge. > >> > > > > The version of "make" that I used with DOS and Windows for about a > > decade came with Borland Pascal. (It might even have been Turbo Pascal, > > before the renaming.) > > > > Mostly I used the IDE for building Pascal projects, rather than a > > makefile. I used "make" primarily for assembly code in those days. > The first language product I ever timed was an assembler running on an > 8-bit Z80 with a 2.5Mhz clock. Its throughput was nearly 2K lines per > second (memory-to-memory). > > That's interesting because the largest program you could write was 64KB, > but in practice half that to allow space for the OS, data, video memory etc. > > That means it couldn't take more than 16 seconds (or 10 seconds on 4Mhz > device) to assemble all the code of the program. > > So, I wonder what benefit a 'make' program would provide. Given that, on > a floppy system, you would need to load make, load the makefile, access > the directory info for each ASM file to check compilation times, which > all cuts into any potential savings of avoiding loading some ASM files. > > In any case, projects were simple enough that you were well aware of any > dependencies yourself. > > So 'make' (which I'd never used and perhaps had never heard of), was > useless. Better to direct my efforts at resident assemblers and > compilers to minimise disk activity. (Would 'make' have invoked the > assembler separately for each source needing compiling?) > Back in the day, hobbyists would code games on an assembler running on the games platform itself. But serious commercial developers had cross compilers. It was faster, it gave them access to more tools, and you didn't have the problem that the assembler itself could compete with the game for resources. The host platform would still be a small computer by modern standards. But it would be considerably bigger than the target platform. And it would have a way of invoking programs relatively efficiently. On the target platform, it would often take several minutes or so for a program to load and boot. So make would be useful. It would give you a list of the source files in the program and the compiler options used to build them. And it would manage the dependencies. However the programs were so small and tended to have such a flat structure that this wasn't a major advantage over rebuilding everything. But make isn't too bad in active development. Because when it breaks, you maintain it, in a way similar to maintaining the actual source. The problems come when make breaks when moving code to a new platform, and the person receiving the code is new to the development of the project. Then it can be very difficult.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 15:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uc7m5d$3g1hg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172709 |
On 23/08/2023 22:13, Bart wrote: > On 23/08/2023 18:33, David Brown wrote: >> On 23/08/2023 18:54, Anton Shepelev wrote: >>> Bart quoth: >>> >>>> Build systems will get more complex and impenetrable, not >>>> simpler and more transparent. >>> >>> Bart's law. >>> >>> Borland and Free Pascal compilers do not require a separate >>> build system (nor a project file, or solution) to build a >>> large modular program. The modern reliance on super >>> compicated tools for simple tasks is horrifying. It makes >>> the programmer feel as a servant rathern than a demiurge. >>> >> >> The version of "make" that I used with DOS and Windows for about a >> decade came with Borland Pascal. (It might even have been Turbo >> Pascal, before the renaming.) >> >> Mostly I used the IDE for building Pascal projects, rather than a >> makefile. I used "make" primarily for assembly code in those days. > > The first language product I ever timed was an assembler running on an > 8-bit Z80 with a 2.5Mhz clock. Its throughput was nearly 2K lines per > second (memory-to-memory). > > That's interesting because the largest program you could write was 64KB, > but in practice half that to allow space for the OS, data, video memory > etc. > > That means it couldn't take more than 16 seconds (or 10 seconds on 4Mhz > device) to assemble all the code of the program. > > So, I wonder what benefit a 'make' program would provide. I didn't run "make" on a Z80. I ran it on a PC - cross-assembling for microcontrollers. "make" let me keep all the information and flags needed for assembling and linking the program in one neat, convenient file. And because I focus my programming on writing modular, organised, maintainable code, I might have 20 or 30 assembly files for a 16 KB program, and at least as many include files. There would be lots of macros too, avoiding error-prone manual duplication. On good old DOS + Win3.1 that takes time. My makefiles also handle things like generating outputs in different formats (such as for debugging, or burning into EEPROMs, or zip files for sending to customers), and sometimes also for automating downloading, running or updating the software on cards. There are /lots/ of things you can do with makefiles for organising projects and automating work on them, besides just avoiding unnecessary compiles or assembly runs. > Given that, on > a floppy system, you would need to load make, load the makefile, access > the directory info for each ASM file to check compilation times, which > all cuts into any potential savings of avoiding loading some ASM files. > Sorry, that makes no sense. If your filesystem is slow (and I was working with a hard disk system, not a floppy system - but it was still slow), then reading "make.exe" and "makefile" is a big win if it avoids reading or writing at least two files, in comparison to always doing a clean build. > In any case, projects were simple enough that you were well aware of any > dependencies yourself. Usually in those days I wrote the dependency lists manually in the makefile. > > So 'make' (which I'd never used and perhaps had never heard of), was > useless. Better to direct my efforts at resident assemblers and > compilers to minimise disk activity. (Would 'make' have invoked the > assembler separately for each source needing compiling?) > Your experience is your own. My experience is that "make" is a very useful too that I have used most work days over the last 30 years. (I probably also used it a bit at university before that.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 15:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20230824083325.525@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #172709 |
On 2023-08-23, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 23/08/2023 18:33, David Brown wrote: >> On 23/08/2023 18:54, Anton Shepelev wrote: >>> Bart quoth: >>> >>>> Build systems will get more complex and impenetrable, not >>>> simpler and more transparent. >>> >>> Bart's law. >>> >>> Borland and Free Pascal compilers do not require a separate >>> build system (nor a project file, or solution) to build a >>> large modular program. The modern reliance on super >>> compicated tools for simple tasks is horrifying. It makes >>> the programmer feel as a servant rathern than a demiurge. >>> >> >> The version of "make" that I used with DOS and Windows for about a >> decade came with Borland Pascal. (It might even have been Turbo Pascal, >> before the renaming.) >> >> Mostly I used the IDE for building Pascal projects, rather than a >> makefile. I used "make" primarily for assembly code in those days. > > The first language product I ever timed was an assembler running on an > 8-bit Z80 with a 2.5Mhz clock. Its throughput was nearly 2K lines per > second (memory-to-memory). > > That's interesting because the largest program you could write was 64KB, > but in practice half that to allow space for the OS, data, video memory etc. > > That means it couldn't take more than 16 seconds (or 10 seconds on 4Mhz > device) to assemble all the code of the program. > > So, I wonder what benefit a 'make' program would provide. Given that, on > a floppy system, you would need to load make, load the makefile, access > the directory info for each ASM file to check compilation times, which > all cuts into any potential savings of avoiding loading some ASM files. Unix already had make as far back as 1979. Here is the source tree for the utilities: https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V7/usr/src/cmd There are some single file .c utilities and some subdirectories. There is a "makeall" shell script which invokes something amusingly called "cmake" on the top level files, individually. This cmake is a script in the cmake/ subdirectory. A silly thing it has a big case statement that switches on the program name and branches to a customized compile command. Many of them are identical except for names; it's obviously copy-paste. Most of the subdirectories have makefiles (lower case "makefile"; they hadn't yet thought of supporting "Makefile" so that it would appear above lower-cased source file names; modern make still looks for a "makefile" too). The makefiles are tidy; they look better than an equivalent script. By equivalent I mean a script that handles the dependencies for incremental rebuilds. Here is adb/makefile from V7 Unix, dated January 11, 1979: CFLAGS = -i -O all: adb cmp: adb cmp adb /bin/adb rm adb *.o cp: adb cp adb /bin/adb rm adb *.o adb: access.o command.o expr.o findfn.o adb: format.o input.o opset.o main.o adb: message.o output.o pcs.o print.o adb: runpcs.o setup.o sym.o adb:; cc -o adb -i *.o access.o: defs.h command.o: defs.h expr.o: defs.h findrtn.o: defs.h format.o: defs.h input.o: defs.h main.o: defs.h message.o: mac.h mode.h output.o: defs.h pcs.o: defs.h print.o: defs.h runpcs.o: defs.h setup.o: defs.h sym.o: defs.h This is very tidy and more or less how make should be used today. We can see that in 1979, make already had built-in rules for compiling. We don't see the compile command anywhere, or how CFLAGS is pulled into the build. It must have been beneficial to those coders to only have to recompile output.c to output.o when output.c was touched. (They did a counterproductive thing with the combined "defs.h" there though, if they wanted the best possible incremental rebuild experience.) Anyway, most of the crap you see around make-based builds is the result of people not understanding how to use make, and evidence of avoiding learning it. When people don't know how to get a desired behavior out of make, they resort to working around it with code generation, additional scripts and whatnot. -- 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 | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 18:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uc85ot$3illn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172718 |
On 24/08/2023 16:51, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2023-08-23, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 23/08/2023 18:33, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 23/08/2023 18:54, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>>>> Bart quoth:
>>>>
>>>>> Build systems will get more complex and impenetrable, not
>>>>> simpler and more transparent.
>>>>
>>>> Bart's law.
>>>>
>>>> Borland and Free Pascal compilers do not require a separate
>>>> build system (nor a project file, or solution) to build a
>>>> large modular program. The modern reliance on super
>>>> compicated tools for simple tasks is horrifying. It makes
>>>> the programmer feel as a servant rathern than a demiurge.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The version of "make" that I used with DOS and Windows for about a
>>> decade came with Borland Pascal. (It might even have been Turbo Pascal,
>>> before the renaming.)
>>>
>>> Mostly I used the IDE for building Pascal projects, rather than a
>>> makefile. I used "make" primarily for assembly code in those days.
>>
>> The first language product I ever timed was an assembler running on an
>> 8-bit Z80 with a 2.5Mhz clock. Its throughput was nearly 2K lines per
>> second (memory-to-memory).
>>
>> That's interesting because the largest program you could write was 64KB,
>> but in practice half that to allow space for the OS, data, video memory etc.
>>
>> That means it couldn't take more than 16 seconds (or 10 seconds on 4Mhz
>> device) to assemble all the code of the program.
>>
>> So, I wonder what benefit a 'make' program would provide. Given that, on
>> a floppy system, you would need to load make, load the makefile, access
>> the directory info for each ASM file to check compilation times, which
>> all cuts into any potential savings of avoiding loading some ASM files.
>
> Unix already had make as far back as 1979.
>
> Here is the source tree for the utilities:
>
> https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V7/usr/src/cmd
>
> There are some single file .c utilities and some subdirectories.
>
> There is a "makeall" shell script which invokes something amusingly
> called "cmake" on the top level files, individually.
>
> This cmake is a script in the cmake/ subdirectory. A silly thing it has
> a big case statement that switches on the program name and branches to a
> customized compile command. Many of them are identical except for names;
> it's obviously copy-paste.
>
> Most of the subdirectories have makefiles (lower case "makefile";
> they hadn't yet thought of supporting "Makefile" so that it would
> appear above lower-cased source file names; modern make still looks
> for a "makefile" too).
>
> The makefiles are tidy; they look better than an equivalent script.
> By equivalent I mean a script that handles the dependencies for
> incremental rebuilds.
>
> Here is adb/makefile from V7 Unix, dated January 11, 1979:
>
> CFLAGS = -i -O
>
> all: adb
>
> cmp: adb
> cmp adb /bin/adb
> rm adb *.o
>
> cp: adb
> cp adb /bin/adb
> rm adb *.o
>
> adb: access.o command.o expr.o findfn.o
> adb: format.o input.o opset.o main.o
> adb: message.o output.o pcs.o print.o
> adb: runpcs.o setup.o sym.o
> adb:; cc -o adb -i *.o
>
>
> access.o: defs.h
> command.o: defs.h
> expr.o: defs.h
> findrtn.o: defs.h
> format.o: defs.h
> input.o: defs.h
> main.o: defs.h
> message.o: mac.h mode.h
> output.o: defs.h
> pcs.o: defs.h
> print.o: defs.h
> runpcs.o: defs.h
> setup.o: defs.h
> sym.o: defs.h
>
> This is very tidy and more or less how make should be used today.
>
> We can see that in 1979, make already had built-in rules for compiling. We
> don't see the compile command anywhere, or how CFLAGS is pulled into the build.
>
> It must have been beneficial to those coders to only have to
> recompile output.c to output.o when output.c was touched.
Some observations:
* This is a C project? If so there is a remarkable lack of .c files!
* opset.o has no dependencies?
* There is a lot of repetition of defs.h
* All the modules (except opset.o) are named twice
* How are the dependencies derived? I guess either manually, which
can be error prone, or an extra tool is needed that understands
C code
* The project seems simple enough that you will know:
* No .c file depends on any other. Any edit to a .c
file only requires compiling that one file
* With any changes to defs.h, you might as well compile the lot
* At best, the makefile lists the modules that are submitted to the
linker
In this case, you can easily do without 'make'.
I can't remember how I built my programs in 1979. But three years later
with my own tools, I would use a project file that would look like this
for a C project file, in 2023:
run adb
module access.c
module command.c
module expr.c
module findrtn.c
module format.c
module input.c
module main.c
module message.c
module output.c
module pcs.c
module print.c
module runpcs.c
module setup.c
module sym.c
header defs.h
header mac.h
header mode.h
In 1980s it wouldn't have been much different. It's used by an IDE which:
* Knows which compiler has been configured (using an actual config
file)
* Uses the project name (adb.pro) as the default for the executable
* Knows it compiles only files prefixed by 'module'
Tyical commands are C, CA, L, R to compile, compile-all, link, run.
Other options can be added here.
Early versions of that IDE had a resident compiler and editor. That IDE
in 2023 is a 75KB script.
However my non-C languages why, while they still use a project file,
don't know to be told what the modules. That info (together with any
extras such as DLLs) is at the start of the source code. Then only C is
used, no CA or L commands needed.
(I need to manually sync the files in the project file, with those in
those; that part is not well developed. But the latter tends to have
also sorts of extra junk too, like docs.)
This is not the file used to create distributions of binaries. Nor is
that used by the enduser to install binaries.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 18:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <OjNFM.897908$GMN3.79590@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #172720 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>On 24/08/2023 16:51, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2023-08-23, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> On 23/08/2023 18:33, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 23/08/2023 18:54, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>>>>> Bart quoth:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Build systems will get more complex and impenetrable, not
>>>>>> simpler and more transparent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bart's law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Borland and Free Pascal compilers do not require a separate
>>>>> build system (nor a project file, or solution) to build a
>>>>> large modular program. The modern reliance on super
>>>>> compicated tools for simple tasks is horrifying. It makes
>>>>> the programmer feel as a servant rathern than a demiurge.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The version of "make" that I used with DOS and Windows for about a
>>>> decade came with Borland Pascal. (It might even have been Turbo Pascal,
>>>> before the renaming.)
>>>>
>>>> Mostly I used the IDE for building Pascal projects, rather than a
>>>> makefile. I used "make" primarily for assembly code in those days.
>>>
>>> The first language product I ever timed was an assembler running on an
>>> 8-bit Z80 with a 2.5Mhz clock. Its throughput was nearly 2K lines per
>>> second (memory-to-memory).
>>>
>>> That's interesting because the largest program you could write was 64KB,
>>> but in practice half that to allow space for the OS, data, video memory etc.
>>>
>>> That means it couldn't take more than 16 seconds (or 10 seconds on 4Mhz
>>> device) to assemble all the code of the program.
>>>
>>> So, I wonder what benefit a 'make' program would provide. Given that, on
>>> a floppy system, you would need to load make, load the makefile, access
>>> the directory info for each ASM file to check compilation times, which
>>> all cuts into any potential savings of avoiding loading some ASM files.
>>
>> Unix already had make as far back as 1979.
>>
>> Here is the source tree for the utilities:
>>
>> https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V7/usr/src/cmd
>>
>> There are some single file .c utilities and some subdirectories.
>>
>> There is a "makeall" shell script which invokes something amusingly
>> called "cmake" on the top level files, individually.
>>
>> This cmake is a script in the cmake/ subdirectory. A silly thing it has
>> a big case statement that switches on the program name and branches to a
>> customized compile command. Many of them are identical except for names;
>> it's obviously copy-paste.
>>
>> Most of the subdirectories have makefiles (lower case "makefile";
>> they hadn't yet thought of supporting "Makefile" so that it would
>> appear above lower-cased source file names; modern make still looks
>> for a "makefile" too).
>>
>> The makefiles are tidy; they look better than an equivalent script.
>> By equivalent I mean a script that handles the dependencies for
>> incremental rebuilds.
>>
>> Here is adb/makefile from V7 Unix, dated January 11, 1979:
>>
>> CFLAGS = -i -O
>>
>> all: adb
>>
>> cmp: adb
>> cmp adb /bin/adb
>> rm adb *.o
>>
>> cp: adb
>> cp adb /bin/adb
>> rm adb *.o
>>
>> adb: access.o command.o expr.o findfn.o
>> adb: format.o input.o opset.o main.o
>> adb: message.o output.o pcs.o print.o
>> adb: runpcs.o setup.o sym.o
>> adb:; cc -o adb -i *.o
>>
>>
>> access.o: defs.h
>> command.o: defs.h
>> expr.o: defs.h
>> findrtn.o: defs.h
>> format.o: defs.h
>> input.o: defs.h
>> main.o: defs.h
>> message.o: mac.h mode.h
>> output.o: defs.h
>> pcs.o: defs.h
>> print.o: defs.h
>> runpcs.o: defs.h
>> setup.o: defs.h
>> sym.o: defs.h
>>
>> This is very tidy and more or less how make should be used today.
>>
>> We can see that in 1979, make already had built-in rules for compiling. We
>> don't see the compile command anywhere, or how CFLAGS is pulled into the build.
>>
>> It must have been beneficial to those coders to only have to
>> recompile output.c to output.o when output.c was touched.
>
>Some observations:
>
>* This is a C project? If so there is a remarkable lack of .c files!
The default rules built into make(1) include a rule like
%.o: %.c
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $@ -c $<
adb: access.o ...
Means that the target 'adb' is dependent on access.o (and others elided here for brevity)
So 'all' (the first target in the makefile) is dependent upon 'adb'.
'adb' is dependent upon a bunch of things, in the order presented in
the make file.
To build 'all' requires building 'adb'. building 'adb' requires bulding
all the relevent dependencies.
make will note that there is an 'access.c' with the same name as
'access.o' in the current working directory and will build access.o
using the default %.o: %.c rule.
Once all the dependencies are built, the final adb dependency is on
the command to link all the objects into the final adb executable.
If the cmp target is invoked (e.g. make cmp) explicitly, the
executable will be compared with a version in /bin and the working
directory will be cleaned. Likewise the 'cp' target will install
the excutable in /bin and clean up intermediate files.
>
>* opset.o has no dependencies?
That does appear to be a bug.
$ grep include /work/reference/usl/unix/v7/usr/src/cmd/adb/opset.c
#include "defs.h"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 20:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uc8f9v$3j9v3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172722 |
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 18:29:02 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote in <OjNFM.897908$GMN3.79590@fx16.iad>:
> The default rules built into make(1) include a rule like
>
> %.o: %.c
> $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -o $@ -c $<
A lot of times, for simple one-off projects, I don't
need a Makefile.
Assuming a valid source file "try.c", I can
type "make try" and get an executable
called "try".
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
$ echo "int main(){ return 0; }" > try.c
$ make try
cc try.c -o try
$ make CFLAGS=-O3 try
make: 'try' is up to date.
$ rm try
$ make CFLAGS=-O3 try
cc -O3 try.c -o try
$ echo 'CFLAGS=-O3' > Makefile
$ rm try
$ make try
cc -O3 try.c -o try
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure this works
in any modern POSIX environment.
Folks are calling it "Unix/Linux" software. But a subset of
that is POSIX, and a POSIX environment on Windows should let
you build some of the same software. (I used to use Cygwin
for that, before I jumped ship completely from Windows.)
And I used the package manager to install autoconf,
which gave me the aclocal command.
Bart:
If you're cloning a git repository on an autoconf package,
expect to run ./autogen.sh -- the included "configure" script
probably isn't set up for Windows. (Guessing.)
And for autogen to work, you'll need the autoconf
developer environment. If you're on Windows,
a working autoconf would seem to be important here,
since that gives you the "aclocal" command that is part
of the process -- and which sets up the configure script
for your environment.
(Just be glad you aren't using imake...)
--
-v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 23:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20230824160017.406@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #172726 |
On 2023-08-24, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > If you're cloning a git repository on an autoconf package, > expect to run ./autogen.sh -- the included "configure" script > probably isn't set up for Windows. (Guessing.) An Autoconf ./configure script must work on any platform to which the program can reasonably be considered to be ported, plus some on which it has not been tried. > And for autogen to work, you'll need the autoconf > developer environment. That defeats the whole purpose of Autoconf. Many GNU programs are like this, unfortunately. When they make a release, they generate the configure script and then tar everything up. So what they are shipping is not a clean snapshot from their repository! Conversely, when you clone their repositories, you are not getting the same thing as a release tarball. You're assumed to be a developer who is willing to install the right version of AutoCrap this and AutoPoop that,and then run "make boostrap" or whatever. If you're unfortunate enough to work with AutoTools, then for pete's sake, generate the configure script, and the Makefile.in and whatnot, and check them into the repository. Do that every time they change. Make it so you can cut a release using "git tag" and nothing else. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web