It looks pretty good, maybe we should recommend it as an
external component.
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 09:43:42 -0500
stephen Turner <stephen.n.turner_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this was blocked by the mailing list, sorry if
> its a duplicate. I wanted to mention that there is a m4
> converted from a bsd rewrite of m4 into a more Linux
> compatible version, he advised it had all the popularly
> used features but may be missing a few of the lesser
> used. I for one have used it for a while with pcc and
> haven't seen issues related to m4. Perhaps this would be
> a helpful starting point for you.
>
> http://haddonthethird.net/m4/
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:31 AM, stephen Turner
> <stephen.n.turner_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > As far as m4 is concerned I happened to meet a guy who
> > converted a bsd rewrite of m4 into a more Linux
> > compatible version, he advised it had all the popularly
> > used features but may be missing a few of the lesser
> > used. I for one have used it for a while with pcc and
> > haven't seen issues related to m4. Perhaps this would
> > be a helpful starting point for you.
> >
> > http://haddonthethird.net/m4/
> >
> >
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017,
> > <sylvain.bertrand_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 06:45:49PM +0100, Mattias
> >> Andrée wrote:
> >> > I'm work on implementing make(1)
> >>
> >> In theory, linux kbuild should be a good reference for
> >> the minimum set of makefile extensions to code. Well,
> >> in theory, the guys paid full-time at the
> >> linux fondation to work on kbuild, should have
> >> constraint themselves to use the
> >> bare minimum of makefile extensions, and be honest
> >> about it (they aren't, be
> >> carefull). suckless: better have a bit more roughness
> >> in the makefile than depends on super duper makefile
> >> extensions... which would make coding an alternative
> >> to make something crazy or insane. It's like C, the
> >> bare minimum of extensions would be those required to
> >> compile a kernel like linux (a good part of C89 syntax
> >> is already tooooo much, hence
> >> even more with C99), but the gcc inline assembly is
> >> critical. The "right" answer would be to abstract away
> >> what's really needed (minimal) from a C toolchain for
> >> a reasonable linux build (even clang/llvm people
> >> failed).
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sylvain
> >>
> >
>
Received on Tue Feb 07 2017 - 23:22:12 CET