This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: In future, to replace autotools by cmake like KDE4 did?
- From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb at gmail dot com>
- To: Andreas Ericsson <ae at op5 dot se>
- Cc: "J.C. Pizarro" <jcpiza at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, git at vger dot kernel dot org, David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Ismail Donmez <ismail at pardus dot org dot tr>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:56:09 +0100
- Subject: Re: In future, to replace autotools by cmake like KDE4 did?
- References: <998d0e4a0712061810k18e6388jde9d7bc5bd006b57@mail.gmail.com> <m3lk86u2fq.fsf@roke.D-201> <47594021.40200@op5.se>
Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> Jakub Narebski wrote:
> >
> > Although there was some talk about whether giw should use autotools,
> > or perhaps CMake, or handmade ./configure script like MPlayer IIRC,
> > instead of its own handmade Makefile...
> >
>
> To tell the truth, I'd be much happier if everything like that got
> put in a header file or some such. 95% of what we figure out by looking
> at "uname" output can already be learned by looking at the various
> pre-defined macros.
>
> Fortunately, there's a project devoted solely to this, so most of
> the tedious research need not be done. It can be found at
> http://predef.sourceforge.net/
Code talks, bullsh*t walks.
Pre-defined macros cannot tell us if one have specific libraries
installed, cannot tell us if formatted IO functions support 'size
specifiers' even though compiler claim C99 compliance or even though
compiler doesn't claim C99 compliance but supports this, etc.
But perhaps the "uname" based compile configuration could be replaced
by testing pre-defined macros... at least for C code, and git is not
only C code.
--
Jakub Narebski
Poland