Jan Bessai wrote:
Not sure if it has any advantages for you, but you might try bmake
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/bmake
It is a port of the Netbsd make.
bmake has its own conditionals like .if, .ifdef, .else, etc., i.e.
it is itself incompatible with GNU make. I'm thinking of som
> On Dec 25, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Cág wrote:
>
> Jan Bessai wrote:
>> Not sure if it has any advantages for you, but you might try bmake
>> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/bmake
>> It is a port of the Netbsd make.
>
> bmake has its own conditionals like .if, .ifdef, .else, etc., i.e.
On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 08:16:47 -0600
Cág wrote:
> I'm thinking of something you can compile the Linux kernel[0] with.
The Linux kernel only compiles with the GNU toolchain. There are
efforts to get it compiling with clang but I believe they are not there
yet.
The Linux kernel is portability becau
> On Dec 25, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Sean MacLennan wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 08:16:47 -0600
> Cág wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking of something you can compile the Linux kernel[0] with.
>
> The Linux kernel only compiles with the GNU toolchain. There are
> efforts to get it compiling with clang bu
Stephen Turner wrote:
Toybox?
I haven’t followed the project in a bit, I really should check in and
see what they have finished but I know that project aimed to get most
if not all of a build environment recreated in a portable form so if
you haven’t seen it then I recommend it.
If I may ask, wh
Sean MacLennan wrote:
I'm thinking of something you can compile the Linux kernel[0] with.
The Linux kernel only compiles with the GNU toolchain. There are
efforts to get it compiling with clang but I believe they are not there
yet.
Wrong. Not even you can compile it with Clang, (HOSTCC=clang C
On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 12:31:50 -0600
Cág wrote:
> Wrong. Not even you can compile it with Clang, (HOSTCC=clang
> CC=clang), but link it with lld:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109288.html
Sorry, I should have said you can't compile a *working* kernel with
clang. They are
Sean MacLennan wrote:
Wrong. Not even you can compile it with Clang, (HOSTCC=clang
CC=clang), but link it with lld:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-January/109288.html
Sorry, I should have said you can't compile a *working* kernel with
clang. They are close though, and I believe t
???
clang/llvm is a c++ abomination: a massive pile of c++ cr*p. If you
dislike the GNU make, wait to read the c++ code of cmake, the build
system of clang/llvm, not to mention ninja (something in the horrible
python3 or python2). I am into llvm code right now, and I feel like
working in an asylum:
Sylvain Bertrand wrote:
???
clang/llvm is a c++ abomination: a massive pile of c++ cr*p. If you
dislike the GNU make, wait to read the c++ code of cmake, the build
system of clang/llvm, not to mention ninja (something in the horrible
python3 or python2). I am into llvm code right now, and I feel
On 2018-12-24 21:11, Cág wrote:
Hi,
This is long and rather off-topic (and a bit of ranting is included, as
always).
I have to use EL7/Fedora almost daily and Ubuntu once every week or
two.
As you might know, they have this GNOME/systemd/etc. thing. I'm
already
kinda used to GNOME freezing,
1) oh... no need to get into llvm and to make a patch... how convenient.
2) no, cmake is a c++ pile of steaming cr*p, period.
3) why do you think I am into llvm code? I am going to stare at this
on-going sabotage and do nothing?
4) only gcc can build linux... for now. But clang/llvm work paves the
12 matches
Mail list logo
