This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: A patch for Makefile.in
- To: Andi Kleen <ak at muc dot de>
- Subject: Re: A patch for Makefile.in
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:08:15 -0600
- cc: Jason Merrill <jason at cygnus dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>, egcs-patches at cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <19980727203453.A1565@kali.lrz-muenchen.de>you write:
> This does not help for the packaging issues. For example my X11 Window
> Manager WindowMaker uses cpp to preprocess its configuration files. This
> works because I have gcc installed, but how would you use WindowMaker
> on a machine with no gcc installed?
> The Linux distributions generally solve this problem by making cpp a
> separate package. It would be nice if that would be better supported
> by the standard gcc build process.
This kind of issue makes me think that the Linux folks should have
a *totally* separate cpp package. ie completely separate source that
is totally outside of the egcs tree.
This fixes both problems -- we don't have to include a Linux specific
disgusting hacks in cpp and the install process. The Linux folks can
continue to use cpp without worrying about how egcs might break it.
>From a system design standpoint, using cpp as a general preprocessor
is a bad idea though. You end up depending on too many behaviors
which are not clearly specified (though this situation has improved
in recent years with ANSI defining cpp's operation more strictly).
m4, sed and other tools are better suited for this kind of thing IMHO
because their actions are better specified.