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 1 of 16 [1] 2 3 … 16 Next page →
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-13 14:53 +0100 |
| Subject | Build Systems |
| Message-ID | <uban99$1rnpb$1@dont-email.me> |
Bart:
>> Suppose you dispensed with all that dependency stuff; how long would
>> it take to build such a project? Say compared with just compiling one
>> module.
>>
David Brown:
> That particular project takes a minute and a half to compile on my
> laptop (it's faster on my main machine). It's 373 compilations, perhaps
> 40% of it C++. Too long for convenience.
OK. I'm surprised (since you say you work on embedded systems) that
software for those can be so elaborate.
I've worked with some restricted machines, and my program builds, which
were also done ON those machines (no cross-compiler on a bigger
machine!) has never taken anywhere near as long as that.
But I thought, should I give 'make' one more chance? I tried some
smallish projects:
-----------------------------
Pico C interpreter: This has a makefile, but it was for Linux. A Windows
build requires MSVC and VS (or whatever is needed to deal with .sln
files), so no thanks.
Yet, I have built this project in the past without make or VS, once I'd
extracted the necessary info.
-------------------------------------------------
Lua Interpreter: This had a makefile, but gave errors. A closer look
revealed things like "-DLINUX...". I know this builds on Windows, but
there was no info as to how that I could see.
----------------------
8cc C compiler: Linux only (although this wasn't mentioned; unistd.h in
the sources gave a clue).
------------------------
SubC C Compiler: this uses a makefile file, but also has WINBUILD.BAT
for Windows. I guess make was not quite flexible enough for Windows, or
had too many Linux dependencies.
But WINBUILD didn't quite work. Maybe it was to do with some errors
unpacking 2-3 .tgz/.tar files: 'Cannot create symbolic link: a required
privilege...'.
--------------
So, maybe 'make' can work under Windows, if only I can find a suitable
project where that actually happens!
What I did find was build systems that are chaotic; the above are
typical unfortunately.
'make' is only part of the problem. Yet these projects are quite
small-scale, with dozens of source files, compared with gcc 13.2 which
had 75,000 source files, and that was described by two people here as
being simple to build.
DB:
> Computers are good at tedious work. They are good at tracking this kind
> of small detail. Why not let the computer do the work here?
Exactly. But I'm not seeing that in these projects. Somebody has to go
to a lot of trouble to create those build scripts, or get additional
sofware's help to create them. Which in the end did not result in my
being able to do an effortless, trouble-free build.
>All it takes is a little googling and a willingness to learn -
makefiles have a somewhat cryptic syntax,
And here you confirm what I said!
>Longer does not mean better. Often it means set in your ways, and
unwilling to look at alternatives.
On the contrary. Alternatives are EXACTLY what I have always worked on,
especially over the last decade.
Maybe it's /you/ who's unwilling to looked at alternatives, but are too
locked in to existing languages, compilers, OSes and support tools. Such
a critical mass has been created that there is no easy way out; just
piling on more stuff, finding creative ways to make things faster.
My C compiler project is roughly on the same scale as the above
examples. Somebody sitting at my desk right now wanting to build my C
compiler would type this from inside the project folder:
C:\cx>mm cc
The project is 71 source and support files, spread this plus two further
nested folders (these contain my compiler's standard headers and
reflects their structure).
The folders contain other stuff not necessary for the build; it doesn't
matter. /Some/ might be junk, a lot is needed for development.
If you wanted to build this product, I could supply a ZIP with a clean
set of files. It would also contain mm.exe, the compiler needed. (Oh
yes, my C compiler is not written in C.)
However, what I would probably do instead is this:
C:\cx>mm -ma cc
This creates an amalgamated file cc.ma. Now I just email you mm.exe and
cc.ma, and you just type:
Anywhere> mm cc.ma # .ma is optional if no clashes
Maybe you'd rather compile C source code instead? OK, I would then do:
C:\cx>mc -c cc # Transpile to single C file
And email you just the cc.c file. You can build it on Windows like this
(add your own options to taste):
Anywhere> gcc cc.c # (tcc needs extra options)
This builds a self-contained C compiler called a.exe. Does it work? I'll
try it:
C:\cx>a cc
Compiling cc.c to cc.exe
But, maybe you want to use Linux? OK, let's see what I can do. I can try
this instead:
C:\cx>mc -c -linux cc m # C file Linux-specific portions
Then, on Linux, you'd need to build it like this demo on WSL:
root@DESKTOP:/mnt/c/cx# gcc cc.c -lm -ldl -fno-builtin -obcc
However, there are limitations, since my C compilers target Win64 ABI,
not Linux. You can do this:
root@DESKTOP:/mnt/c/cx# ./bcc -c sql
Compiling sql.c to sql.obj
root@DESKTOP:/mnt/c/cx# ./bcc -S sql
Compiling sql.c to sql.asm
But you can't create sql.exe (that needs to access msvcrt.dll). And even
those .obj/.asm files contain Windows-specific native code.
-------------------------------
So, what do think of my alternatives? No build system in sight, whether
makefiles, SLN files or batch files.
In each case there was a simple one-line command involving one compiler
and one named source file, even if that line got longer the further we
got from my language, and from Windows.
For an actual multi-file, original C project, I've demonstrated
elsewhere the -auto option of my C compiler. But for use with existing
compilers for other people to use from the command line I would provide
@ or .bat files.
Of course, most of my actual development, not command line work, is from
from my mini-IDE, currently a 75KB program. I can use that for C too but
only bcc is supported.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-13 21:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87ttt2isc8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #172151 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > But I thought, should I give 'make' one more chance? I tried some smallish > projects: > > ----------------------------- > Pico C interpreter: This has a makefile, but it was for Linux. A Windows > build requires MSVC and VS (or whatever is needed to deal with .sln files), > so no thanks. What has this got to do with make? > Yet, I have built this project in the past without make or VS, once I'd > extracted the necessary info. Did you contribute your method, batch file, makefile or whatever to the project? If not, why not? > ------------------------------------------------- > > Lua Interpreter: This had a makefile, but gave errors. Linux software, does not compile without effort on Windows. In other news, bear defecates in the woods. > A closer look > revealed things like "-DLINUX...". I know this builds on Windows, but there > was no info as to how that I could see. They make it hard. It's hidden on the download page under the heading "Building" with the confusing link "detailed instructions". But again, what has this do with make? > ---------------------- 8cc C compiler: Linux only (although this > wasn't mentioned; unistd.h in the sources gave a clue). Again, hidden away in the README file: "8cc supports x86-64 Linux only. I have no plan to make it portable..." Who'd think to look there? And again, what has this to do with make? > ------------------------ > > SubC C Compiler: this uses a makefile file, but also has WINBUILD.BAT for > Windows. I guess make was not quite flexible enough for Windows, or had too > many Linux dependencies. Or maybe the person who wrote the BAT file did not know make? Now if you had some evidence that a BAT file was needed because make can't do the job on Windows then you might actually have a comment that relates to giving make one more try. But you don't. Your remark about giving make a another try in a post about build systems suggests you don't know what it's for. It does not magically allow software to be built on different systems. However, it might help. While a .BAT file will be of no use on Linux, a well-written makefile might need only a few tweaks to compile a program with MS VC and of course it could include a Windows-only target like "prog.exe" so no that tweaks might be needed. > -------------- > > So, maybe 'make' can work under Windows, if only I can find a suitable > project where that actually happens! Or you could chip in and help by writing a windows makefile (or adding suitable rules to a existing makefile) for one of them. > What I did find was build systems that are chaotic; the above are typical > unfortunately. They seem be crying out for someone to write a good Windows makefile for them. Will that be you? > 'make' is only part of the problem. Or make could be a big part of the solution. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-13 23:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ubbmaj$20435$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172176 |
On 13/08/2023 21:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > What has this got to do with make? > But again, what has this do with make? > And again, what has this to do with make? I'm looking for a project to build on Windows using make. I didn't have much luck; they seem to avoid using it! >> Lua Interpreter: This had a makefile, but gave errors. > > Linux software, does not compile without effort on Windows. In other > news, bear defecates in the woods. Rubbish. Lua had been easy to build: just submit the right set of .c files to the compiler. Except the next version had a slightly different set of files. >> A closer look >> revealed things like "-DLINUX...". I know this builds on Windows, but there >> was no info as to how that I could see. > > They make it hard. It's hidden on the download page under the heading > "Building" with the confusing link "detailed instructions". Not if you approach it via 'github lua'. There is more info if you go to the proper Lua site, but I still couldn't see what you are supposed to do to build Lua using 'make', as that was the purpose of the exercise: to find even ONE project where make actually works on Windows! -------------------- I'm going to try one more project, which is Tiny C. This is better documented, and directly within the downloaded files. The build process for Linux is './configure' (oh-oh) then 'make', but it says, for Windows read tcc-win32.txt. There it says: install MSYS and /then/ do './configure' followed by 'make'! But then it also gives the choice of running a batch file. So, another project where they give up on 'make' on Windows. And this is what you guys want me to adopt? These examples aren't very compelling are they? Since I'm at this point, I might as well try that batch file. It relies on gcc. And ... compiler errors amongst loads of warning and notes. Disappointing. But if it had worked, configure + makefile together were 654 lines, this batch file was 28 lines. It presumably contains the right instructions to build this app; what's with the other 626 lines? >> What I did find was build systems that are chaotic; the above are typical >> unfortunately. > > They seem be crying out for someone to write a good Windows makefile > for them. Will that be you? > >> 'make' is only part of the problem. > > Or make could be a big part of the solution. My solutions in the snipped portions are: * Use a language with its own build system and a built-way to create one-file amalgamations * For C, find a way to create (sqlite3-like) one-file amalgamations * Supply build information as an @ list of files or a /simple/ shell script (or just explain in English how to build) * For anything more elaborate, use a script but in a language anyone understands Remember for someone else to build a working program from source, dependencies within a make files are irrelevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 01:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87o7jaiilp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #172179 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 13/08/2023 21:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> What has this got to do with make? >> But again, what has this do with make? > >> And again, what has this to do with make? > > I'm looking for a project to build on Windows using make. I didn't have > much luck; they seem to avoid using it! You found a Unix utility hardly used on Windows. Film at 11. > Remember for someone else to build a working program from source, > dependencies within a make files are irrelevant. Yes, make is not a configuration and build system. It does not attempt to solve any of the issues in your posts on the topic. A lot of the software you looked at is open source (some of it also free as in freedom) originating on Linux systems. A key consideration for such software is to encourage development rather than just building. That's why make is popular and commonly used in the Linux world. Things may have changed, but when I used to use Windows a lot, software was rarely distributed as source code and even more rarely in a form that encouraged tinkering. If there is a way of doing this, that is widely used in the Windows world, I don't know what it is. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 00:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PPeCM.479849$TCKc.32962@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #172181 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> On 13/08/2023 21:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> What has this got to do with make? >>> But again, what has this do with make? >> >>> And again, what has this to do with make? >> >> I'm looking for a project to build on Windows using make. I didn't have >> much luck; they seem to avoid using it! > >You found a Unix utility hardly used on Windows. Film at 11. As far as I am aware, Windows doesn't have a native make utility in the first place (nmake is part of the visual studio distribution), so its likely that Bart's quest to find a package that uses make on windows will fail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 01:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ubbule$3hium$3@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #172182 |
In article <PPeCM.479849$TCKc.32962@fx13.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 13/08/2023 21:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> What has this got to do with make?
>>>> But again, what has this do with make?
>>>
>>>> And again, what has this to do with make?
>>>
>>> I'm looking for a project to build on Windows using make. I didn't have
>>> much luck; they seem to avoid using it!
>>
>>You found a Unix utility hardly used on Windows. Film at 11.
>
>As far as I am aware, Windows doesn't have a native make utility in
>the first place (nmake is part of the visual studio distribution), so
>its likely that Bart's quest to find a package that uses make on
>windows will fail.
>
DOS/Windows (and Mac similarly) has *never* shipped with any sort of
development environment, so arguing that it doesn't have "make" is kind of
pointless.
--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansplaining
It describes comp.lang.c to a T!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-13 18:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8fb22829-9b5e-4108-a513-df3b72391405n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #172185 |
On Monday, 14 August 2023 at 02:06:04 UTC+1, Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <PPeCM.479849$TCKc....@fx13.iad>, > Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >Ben Bacarisse <ben.u...@bsb.me.uk> writes: > >>Bart <b...@freeuk.com> writes: > >> > >>> On 13/08/2023 21:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>>> Bart <b...@freeuk.com> writes: > >>>> What has this got to do with make? > >>>> But again, what has this do with make? > >>> > >>>> And again, what has this to do with make? > >>> > >>> I'm looking for a project to build on Windows using make. I didn't have > >>> much luck; they seem to avoid using it! > >> > >>You found a Unix utility hardly used on Windows. Film at 11. > > > >As far as I am aware, Windows doesn't have a native make utility in > >the first place (nmake is part of the visual studio distribution), so > >its likely that Bart's quest to find a package that uses make on > >windows will fail. > > > DOS/Windows (and Mac similarly) has *never* shipped with any sort of > development environment, so arguing that it doesn't have "make" is kind of > pointless. > Yes, when I started as a DOS programmer you had to buy a compiler. I asked for one as a birthday present from my grandmother, and I remember trying to explain to her what she had just bought me. Then later on I moved to Windows and bought Visual Studio. It was a lot of money for me at the time, and was a "personal" copy. It lacked an optimiser, some group work facilities (I think) and you weren't allowed to sell software compiled with it. The full version cost several hundred pounds and was out of reach. But I loved it because of the integrated help (this was pre good internet). Then they broke it when Vista came out. I compained, and received an arrogant and dismissive response. I was absolutely furious. The personal, affordable compilers were discontinued, and only the enterprise edition available. Which cost more than the computer. There was a free Visual Studio available, but you could tell that at the time Microsoft wasn't happy about releasing free software. It was badly done, and difficult to use, and didn't support the latest C standards, and didn't have proper API documentation. And it came with ban on using it to develop software with what they called a "viral" licence. Nowadays Visual Studio is free even to commercial users. Stallman has won. But you have to download it. It doesn't ship as standard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 02:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) |
| Message-ID | <ubc4e0$3hlul$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #172186 |
In article <8fb22829-9b5e-4108-a513-df3b72391405n@googlegroups.com>, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: ... >> DOS/Windows (and Mac similarly) has *never* shipped with any sort of >> development environment, so arguing that it doesn't have "make" is kind of >> pointless. I may actually have mis-spoken here. DOS did originally come with GWBASIC, so you could, at least write and run programs back then. Whether BASIC (of any stripe) counts as a development environment is, of course, open to debate... Does modern Windows come with VB.NET ready-to-go, or do you have to download it? -- The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4 lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL: http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/FreeCollege
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-13 20:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) |
| Message-ID | <b606014c-2058-41ea-b05b-361b40df7743n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #172187 |
On Monday, 14 August 2023 at 03:44:31 UTC+1, Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <8fb22829-9b5e-4108...@googlegroups.com>, > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... > >> DOS/Windows (and Mac similarly) has *never* shipped with any sort of > >> development environment, so arguing that it doesn't have "make" is kind of > >> pointless. > I may actually have mis-spoken here. DOS did originally come with GWBASIC, > so you could, at least write and run programs back then. > Yes, when microcomputers came out in the 1980s, it was thought that the average user would also develop his own programs. So when you booted the computer it put you into the BASIC. Because the machine was so small, there wasn't a distinction between the editor and the intepreter. > > Whether BASIC (of any stripe) counts as a development environment is, of > course, open to debate... > I'm an implementer of BASIC myself so don't diss the language. MIniBasic, which is my version, is used in embedded systems. Often the embedded processor is doing something pretty trivial in programming terms (the interest of the project is in the electronics). It's easier to edit a short MiniBasic script on the machine than cross-compile and load an executable. > > Does modern Windows come with VB.NET ready-to-go, or do you have to > download it? > You have to download it. VB is still used for serious commercial development. But for programs where the focus is on the GUI and business logic. It's not used much for the sort of programming that I do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthew Ernisse <matt@going-flying.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-17 22:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) |
| Message-ID | <slrnudt64j.2ek.matt@imladris.colo.ub3rgeek.net> |
| In reply to | #172187 |
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 02:44:16 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <8fb22829-9b5e-4108-a513-df3b72391405n@googlegroups.com>, > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > ... >>> DOS/Windows (and Mac similarly) has *never* shipped with any sort of >>> development environment, so arguing that it doesn't have "make" is kind of >>> pointless. > > I may actually have mis-spoken here. DOS did originally come with GWBASIC, > so you could, at least write and run programs back then. Later DOS version (I think 6+) came with QBASIC which was pretty close to an early IDE, reasoned individuals may debate whether it is a development environment but I believe I recall single-stepping in it. > Does modern Windows come with VB.NET ready-to-go, or do you have to > download it? The latest version of Windows 10 Home does not come with any development tools that I'm aware of. Even WSL requires installation after the fact. -- "The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." --Kosh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-18 03:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) |
| Message-ID | <e1b684d2-8b34-4660-a424-348c10cefd28n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #172480 |
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:01:07 AM UTC+3, Matthew Ernisse wrote: > On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 02:44:16 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote: > > In article <8fb22829-9b5e-4108...@googlegroups.com>, > > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ... > >>> DOS/Windows (and Mac similarly) has *never* shipped with any sort of > >>> development environment, so arguing that it doesn't have "make" is kind of > >>> pointless. > > > > I may actually have mis-spoken here. DOS did originally come with GWBASIC, > > so you could, at least write and run programs back then. > > Later DOS version (I think 6+) came with QBASIC which was pretty close to > an early IDE, reasoned individuals may debate whether it is a development > environment but I believe I recall single-stepping in it. > > > Does modern Windows come with VB.NET ready-to-go, or do you have to > > download it? > > The latest version of Windows 10 Home does not come with any development > tools that I'm aware of. Even WSL requires installation after the fact. > > -- > "The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." > --Kosh They still have a primitive text editor preinstalled and at least two script engines - cmd.exe and powershell.exe. I didn't check, but it seems that WSH is here too with JScript and VBScript engines. Taking away all traces of user's ability to write his own scripts is probably very desirable in some corporate environments, but it seems that MS didn't figure out yet how to do it without breaking few things that corporations do want. Or, may be, they did and, I don't know. I have no exposure to desktop OSes used but big enterprises.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-18 04:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) |
| Message-ID | <06b8aba9-7a8d-4214-9289-b1a0a141ef46n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #172480 |
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 23:01:07 UTC+1, Matthew Ernisse wrote: > On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 02:44:16 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote: > > In article <8fb22829-9b5e-4108...@googlegroups.com>, > > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ... > >>> DOS/Windows (and Mac similarly) has *never* shipped with any sort of > >>> development environment, so arguing that it doesn't have "make" is kind of > >>> pointless. > > > > I may actually have mis-spoken here. DOS did originally come with GWBASIC, > > so you could, at least write and run programs back then. > > Later DOS version (I think 6+) came with QBASIC which was pretty close to > an early IDE, reasoned individuals may debate whether it is a development > environment but I believe I recall single-stepping in it. > > > Does modern Windows come with VB.NET ready-to-go, or do you have to > > download it? > > The latest version of Windows 10 Home does not come with any development > tools that I'm aware of. Even WSL requires installation after the fact. I have WSL but I don't remember having to install it. Windows is meant as a consumer end-product not for development. Do Android or Mac machines (or Chrome laptops) come with programming tools? Or do those tools only exist because there is some underlying Unix-like system?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthew Ernisse <matt@going-flying.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-18 13:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) |
| Message-ID | <slrnuduqup.2ek.matt@imladris.colo.ub3rgeek.net> |
| In reply to | #172491 |
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 04:58:53 -0700 (PDT), bart c wrote: > > Windows is meant as a consumer end-product not for development. Do > Android or Mac machines (or Chrome laptops) come with programming tools? > Or do those tools only exist because there is some underlying Unix-like > system? I don't use Android or Chrome systems so I do not know. Modern versions of macOS ship with several interpreted language parsers as well as several scriptable shells but the major development environment and tooling (XCode in this case) require a separate download. I think it all comes down to how nitpicky you want to get about the various values of 'development tools' and 'come with'. As far as I'm aware all modern operating system installations can be customized to some extent. I'm certain I can produce a Debian Linux install devoid of a C compiler and I could probably produce a Windows installation that comes with Visual Studio. -- "The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." --Kosh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-20 16:14 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Dev on Windoze |
| Message-ID | <87o7j1am9a.fsf@fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #172480 |
Matthew Ernisse <matt@going-flying.com> writes: > On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 02:44:16 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote: >> In article <8fb22829-9b5e-4108-a513-df3b72391405n@googlegroups.com>, >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: >> ... >>>> DOS/Windows (and Mac similarly) has *never* shipped with any sort of >>>> development environment, so arguing that it doesn't have "make" is kind of >>>> pointless. >> >> I may actually have mis-spoken here. DOS did originally come with GWBASIC, >> so you could, at least write and run programs back then. > > Later DOS version (I think 6+) came with QBASIC which was pretty close to > an early IDE, reasoned individuals may debate whether it is a development > environment but I believe I recall single-stepping in it. DOS 5 came with GORILLA.BAS, that I do remember. Phil -- We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization. -- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-20 11:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Dev on Windoze |
| Message-ID | <ubtkm2$1fefc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172576 |
On 8/20/2023 6:14 AM, Phil Carmody wrote: > Matthew Ernisse <matt@going-flying.com> writes: >> On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 02:44:16 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote: >>> In article <8fb22829-9b5e-4108-a513-df3b72391405n@googlegroups.com>, >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: >>> ... >>>>> DOS/Windows (and Mac similarly) has *never* shipped with any sort of >>>>> development environment, so arguing that it doesn't have "make" is kind of >>>>> pointless. >>> >>> I may actually have mis-spoken here. DOS did originally come with GWBASIC, >>> so you could, at least write and run programs back then. >> >> Later DOS version (I think 6+) came with QBASIC which was pretty close to >> an early IDE, reasoned individuals may debate whether it is a development >> environment but I believe I recall single-stepping in it. > > DOS 5 came with GORILLA.BAS, that I do remember. Big time! I used to have a lot of fun hacking around with it to create different behaviors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-18 16:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Dev on Windoze (Was: Build Systems) |
| Message-ID | <ubou4b$eaa2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172187 |
On 8/13/2023 7:44 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <8fb22829-9b5e-4108-a513-df3b72391405n@googlegroups.com>, > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > ... >>> DOS/Windows (and Mac similarly) has *never* shipped with any sort of >>> development environment, so arguing that it doesn't have "make" is kind of >>> pointless. > > I may actually have mis-spoken here. DOS did originally come with GWBASIC, > so you could, at least write and run programs back then. > > Whether BASIC (of any stripe) counts as a development environment is, of > course, open to debate... > > Does modern Windows come with VB.NET ready-to-go, or do you have to > download it? > Download MSVC Express; get it working; then make sure to download: https://vcpkg.io Not that terribly "bad", so to speak. A fairly decent number of libs to choose from. They will be compiled, so, they do not all install in the blink of an eye, so to speak. The integrate into MSVC. Iirc, they even work over on Linux via: https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/setup/linux
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 04:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20230813210150.757@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #172185 |
On 2023-08-14, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote: > In article <PPeCM.479849$TCKc.32962@fx13.iad>, > Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: >>Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >>>Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 13/08/2023 21:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>>> What has this got to do with make? >>>>> But again, what has this do with make? >>>> >>>>> And again, what has this to do with make? >>>> >>>> I'm looking for a project to build on Windows using make. I didn't have >>>> much luck; they seem to avoid using it! >>> >>>You found a Unix utility hardly used on Windows. Film at 11. >> >>As far as I am aware, Windows doesn't have a native make utility in >>the first place (nmake is part of the visual studio distribution), so >>its likely that Bart's quest to find a package that uses make on >>windows will fail. >> > > DOS/Windows (and Mac similarly) has *never* shipped with any sort of > development environment, so arguing that it doesn't have "make" is kind of > pointless. MS-DOS came with DEBUG.COM: an assembly language development environment. :) -- 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 | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 10:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ubcuq1$3i2tn$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #172193 |
In article <20230813210150.757@kylheku.com>, Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> wrote: ... >MS-DOS came with DEBUG.COM: an assembly language development >environment. :) Indeed. And I used it as such - many times. I also used DEBUG as an editor. -- 12% of Americans think that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Karl Meyer <karlmeyer25@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 05:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59f6d2fc-ac01-4cd8-bb26-7a477fa653fcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #172209 |
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 6:14:39 AM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <202308132...@kylheku.com>, > Kaz Kylheku <864-11...@kylheku.com> wrote: > ... > >MS-DOS came with DEBUG.COM: an assembly language development > >environment. :) > Indeed. And I used it as such - many times. I also used DEBUG as an editor. > > -- > 12% of Americans think that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. There is a GNU version of Make for Windows. There is also a GNU version of the GCC for Windows that can compile compatible binaries for Window's and x86_x64. For native Windows apps though, it really doesn't make sense to use it long term, as the MSVC is clearly optimized to leverage the OS and all its features to make programs work efficiently. Besides the Visual Studio build system that you can configure within the app, if you prefer "lighter" dev environments, its perfectly easy to use VS Code with an off the shelf build system like CMake or PreMake (or even GNU Make) as long as you have a C/C++ compiler already in your System Variables Path (or configured through VS Code's config). What you lose by NOT doing Windows application development inside of Visual Studio is its extremely feature rich Debug suite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 10:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ubcsgg$28f1o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #172182 |
On 14/08/2023 01:46, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> On 13/08/2023 21:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> What has this got to do with make? >>>> But again, what has this do with make? >>> >>>> And again, what has this to do with make? >>> >>> I'm looking for a project to build on Windows using make. I didn't have >>> much luck; they seem to avoid using it! >> >> You found a Unix utility hardly used on Windows. Film at 11. > > As far as I am aware, Windows doesn't have a native make utility in > the first place (nmake is part of the visual studio distribution), so > its likely that Bart's quest to find a package that uses make on > windows will fail. > There are projects with makefiles that are meant to work with Windows. IME they mostly don't work, in that something usually goes wrong. I just couldn't remember what they were. I do however remember one that did work: LuaJIT. I downloaded it now, and there, the main makefile has this comment: # Suitable for POSIX platforms (Linux, *BSD, OSX etc.). # Note: src/Makefile has many more configurable options. # # ##### This Makefile is NOT useful for Windows! ##### # For MSVC, please follow the instructions given in src/msvcbuild.bat. # For MinGW and Cygwin, cd to src and run make with the Makefile there. I don't have MSVC (I can rarely get it to work, and it's monstrous). Mingw I guess means gcc on Windows. When I tried that other makefile, it worked perfectly. The output messages were also clean and restrained (no endless crap flying up the screen for an hour, like GMP under MSYS). But this is rare. My assertion is that they're usually troublesome. I also don't hold with having to use MSVC when I have a perfectly good compiler, gcc, even with its foibles. This project is unusual (or maybe this is common) as it can't really be built with any compiler. Attempts to use one that's not supported will display: lj_def.h:300: error: #error "missing defines for your compiler" Here it's done properly: helpful messages inside the downloaded files.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 16 [1] 2 3 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web