On Mon, 2023-05-15 at 17:48 +0100, Costas Argyris wrote: > As I have said before, I wasn't successful in getting the Basic.mk > approach to work on Windows, as I was getting various errors all > over the place. They started with CC being undefined, but even > after I defined it to 'gcc' this just took me to various link errors, > at which point I thought that this approach is not really maintained. > That was in contrast with the other two approaches on Windows > host, namely configure and .bat file, both of which worked as > expected.
I think I tried to say before, but probably failed to be clear, that Basic.mk is used _in conjunction with_ one of the alternatives to running configure. By that I mean you FIRST have to use one of the alternatives to running configure, THEN you can use Build.mk. The Basic.mk framework doesn't, in particular, set up config.h etc. So, the following recipe works for me; first: .\build_w32.bat This sets up config.h and copies the Basic.mk file to be Makefile so that it's available for GNU make to use. .\WinRel\gnumake.exe This invokes the just-built GNU Make and uses the Makefile copy of Basic.mk (of course you can use .\WinRel\gnumake.exe -f Basic.mk instead if you prefer). By default, Basic.mk uses Visual Studio as the compiler, and it expects the invoking shell has set up MSVC using vcvarsall or whatever. If you set TOOLCHAIN=gcc on the make command line it should use GCC. I admit I haven't tried this one recently. > So, can this feature proceed without changes in Basic.mk? It's fine with me if you want to submit a patch that doesn't provide these updates. I can add them myself, or not.
