> On 14 Dec 2024, at 10:11, Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 2024-12-12 at 12:56 -0500, James K. Lowden wrote:
>>> The following 8 patches constitute the 80 files needed to build and
>>> document the COBOL front end. They assume that following exist:
>>>
>>> gcc/cobol/ChangeLog
>>> libgcobol/ChangeLog
>>>
>>> The messages are grouped by files in a more or less logical order,
>>> but groups are somewhat arbitrary. The primary constraint afaik is
>>> to
>>> keep them from getting too big, fsvo $too. We have:
>>>
>>> 460K hdr header files
>>> 484K par the parser
>>> 760K gen GENERIC interface
>>> 556K cbl other supporting C++ files
>>> 432K cfg libgcobol/configure
>>> 788K lib libgcobol, all of it
>>> 72K doc man pages, for now
>>> 24K bld "meta" files, such a gcc/cobol/Make-lang.in
>>>
>>> Except for "bld", these all contain new files, can be applied in any
>>> order.
>>>
>>> If you would like the patches smaller or larger, I'm happy to
>>> rearrange
>>> them. Some of exceed the 400 KB mail limit, but I'm assured they'll
>>> be
>>> moderated through.
>>>
>>> This patchset excludes tests. While we do have tests, it's not clear
>>> how or if to add them to gcc. They use a combination of (largely)
>>> 3rd
>>> party sources and GNU Autotest.
>>>
>>> A word about C style, always a lively topic. For any files already
>>> present in gcc, the existing style was followed, and any variation
>>> from
>>> it is unintentional. Files related to the parser use K&R style. The
>>> GENERIC interface and runtime library use Whitesmiths style. All C++
>>> code uses spaces for indentation.
>>>
>>> The COBOL front end has been and is being written by two guys with
>>> decades of experience. We hope the code is a testament to that
>>> experience. Our relatively recent experience, these last four years,
>>> is that it has been more productive to keep using the styles to which
>>> we've long become accustomed. The position of curly braces is hardly
>>> any hindrance to read another's code, but it's a burden to write that
>>> way. We think, 83,068 lines later, the proof of the pudding is in the
>>> eating.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your kind consideration of our work.
>>
>> Please forgive me if you've already said this elsewhere, but is this
>> work available in a public git repo somewhere?
>>
>
> https://gitlab.cobolworx.com/COBOLworx/gcc-cobol/
But (IIUC) this is the development branch; what would be ideal would be
a branch with just the 8 patches.
====
NOTE0 : the decision to use different whitespace rules from the rest of GCC
means the that patches apply only with a very large number of whitespace
errors .. which might be fine - but, of course, you cannot now tell intentional
whitespace errors from actual mistakes ….
NOTE1 : patch 8 did not apply for me without editing - there seems to be a
duplicate of gcc/cobol/config-lang.in in patches 4 and 8.
NOTE2 : the top level Makefile.in needs to be regenerated.
Will try this on Darwin - (I removed the config-lang.in from patch 8 and
regenerated the top level Makefile.in) - hopefully the patch 4 config-lang.in
is OK to use.
Is it intentional that this requires bison at build-time or is there a missing
“touch” for some generated file?
thanks
Iain
>
>> Thanks
>> Dave
