>From a user perspective it has been a treat. I had issues with the GNU M4 compiling on a embedded musl and PCC system but this M4 compiled quick and clean. The only potential downside i can think of is it may not be well maintained. last i checked the website there were no new releases from when we tweaked the make file. There is another project called elftoolchain which replaces binutils but i haven't tested it yet.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mattias Andrée <[email protected]> wrote: > It looks pretty good, maybe we should recommend it as an > external component. > > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 09:43:42 -0500 > stephen Turner <[email protected]> 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 >> <[email protected]> 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, >> > <[email protected]> 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 >> >> >> > >> >
