On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:24:52 +0000
Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > +prototypes.cpp: posix.txt
> > + awk -F'[/.]' '{ print $$6 }' $^ | \
> > + while read F; do echo "/* $$F */" && man 2 $$F | \
> > + ./scrape.awk -v funcname=$$6; done > $@~
> > + @mv $@~ $@
> > +
> > +posix.txt:
> > + zgrep -l 'POSIX[.]' /usr/share/man/man2/*z > $@~
>
> This will need reworking. It assumes the location of the man pages on
> the system, assumes 'zgrep' exists, and assumes 'zgrep' can read the
> man pages (the man pages may be compressed with something else; I know
> such systems exist).
>
> I'm not sure this is really any less brittle or more robust than just
> listing the actual functions you scraped out from your system.
You might be reading more into this than you want to.
As you saw in gcc/cobol/posix/README.md, the files in that directory are not
part of the compiler. They are tools we provide that potentially make it
easier to generate user-defined COBOL functions that call functions in the C
standard library, in particular syscalls. IMO they don't need to be perfect;
it is enough that they are good.
The user need never touch this part of the system. The compiler functions
without it. It's there as a convenience and demonstration. I hope to
encourage contributions from users to this directory in a "contrib/" kind of
way.
There are dependencies beyond the ones you mention, not least (as documented)
the Python PLY module. Anyone sitting down with this tool will have to wrestle
with it a bit. I contend that, if the user needs more than a few functions, it
will be less trouble to engage the tool than to write them by hand.
I agree it could be improved. For example,
> +posix.txt:
> + zgrep -l 'POSIX[.]' /usr/share/man/man2/*z > $@~
could be
posix.txt:
$(ZGREP) -l 'POSIX[.]' $(MANDIR)/man/man2/*z > $@~
but that doesn't gain us much, does it? We could start over with autoconf &
automake, to ensure full portability. But that would defeat the purpose. What
I want to provide here is a prototype, not a robust foolproof tool.
I think a simple example -- even a brittle one loaded with assumptions -- is
easier to understand and serves as a better illustration than a complicated
one. I want to provide such a tool as part of gcobol, to give the user a
facility not available from any other COBOL compiler. I think it's better
included in the gcc distribution than as an SO post or FAQ at
http://www.cobolworx.com.
I'm sure you agree we don't want to let this tail wag the dog. With my
exegesis in mind, what would you recommend? If it's limited to more judicious
use of makefile variables, I could surely implement those suggestions.
--jkl
