Re: maint.mk syntax check problems

Martin von Gagern wrote: ... >> It might not be worth the effort/disruption. >> One advantage of using Makefile rules is that it's easy to override >> the defaults, as you see in the examples above. > > Not so hard with shell scripts either. Use "source cfg.sh" instead of > "-include ./cfg.mk" and

Re: maint.mk syntax check problems

Hi Jim. On Thursday 15 September 2011, Jim Meyering wrote: > Martin von Gagern wrote: > ... > >> It might not be worth the effort/disruption. > >> One advantage of using Makefile rules is that it's easy to override > >> the defaults, as you see in the examples above. > > > > Not so hard with shell

Re: maint.mk syntax check problems

Stefano Lattarini wrote: ... >> Converting to a stand-alone script is a fine and seductive idea. > > About an yaer ago I had proposed a similar move for automake's own > maintainer checks; see this RFC patch: > At first gla

Syntax checks in perl (was: Re: maint.mk syntax check problems)

On 15.09.2011 11:37, Jim Meyering wrote: > I'm sure that a perl-based > implementation would be far more efficient, and probably faster > even if the perl implementation doesn't run its tests in parallel. > > Perl is well suited to this task. > I'm sure some will object to Perl's syntax, but not I

ssize_t on MSVC

On MSVC 9, ssize_t is not defined, leading to test compilation failures in test-stdio.c:36, test-sys_uio.c:25, test-unistd.c:40. According to POSIX:2008, ssize_t ought to be defined in each of This fixes it. 2011-09-15 Bruno Haible Support for MSVC compiler: Ensure ss

Re: ssize_t on MSVC

On 09/15/2011 10:08 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: On MSVC 9, ssize_t is not defined, leading to test compilation failures in test-stdio.c:36, test-sys_uio.c:25, test-unistd.c:40. According to POSIX:2008, ssize_t ought to be defined in each of For the record, POSIX 2008 also requi

Re: Syntax checks in perl (was: Re: maint.mk syntax check problems)

Hi Martin. On Thursday 15 September 2011, Martin von wrote: > On 15.09.2011 11:37, Jim Meyering wrote: > > I'm sure that a perl-based > > implementation would be far more efficient, and probably faster > > even if the perl implementation doesn't run its tests in parallel. > > > > Perl is well sui

Re: Syntax checks in perl

Hi Stefano. On 15.09.2011 21:08, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Perl versions from 5.8 onwards should have a threading interface too, > if I'm not mistaken. I don't know how powerful or easy-to-use it is, > though. Afaik ithreads support is an optional feature, not sure how distros out there handle