Tom Lord wrote:
> I think the information that goes into a port can be profitably
> factored out, most of it into a plain text, commented database, with
> perhaps a little bit of per-platform scripting.
Please see the ``binary-branch'' I started. In essence,
that is what I was starting to do:
1. Create definitions (a text, commented database) of how
you use the various platform specific tools.
2. Put some common stuff into C code (e.g., the "echo" replacement)
I haven't gotten real far 'cuz I have a job, a life and
a book I am really trying to work on....
> The result would be a
> database, mostly independent of the rest of libtool,
It is actually independent of any implementation decisions.
See the fixinclude stuff I did for GCC.
http://autogen.sourceforge.net/fixinc.html
That's roughly my vision for when I bump into copious spare time.
> Through
> cleverness, I'm hoping that such a database can be produced mostly
> automatically using the existing libtool implementation itself.
I saw it developing as a gradual winnowing of the source text.
I don't expect it to go real fast....
> The internal
> abstractions used by libtool are barely documented at all in comments
> -- it's in a horrible state in that regard.
I sort-of noticed that, too.
> The fact that all that functionality is lumped into one huge script
> makes the code ridiculously hard to read and the internal abstractions
> ridiculously hard to identify. Making those abstractions more
> explicit by breaking up the huge script into functions and/or
> subscripts with documented interfaces would help a lot.
The "binary-branch" is a teensy step in that direction...
==
Bruce Korb <first initial + last name at gnu dot org>
AG URL: http://autogen.sourceforge.net
_______________________________________________
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
