On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 08:36:04AM -0400, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: According to Larry Wall:
: > On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 12:27:36PM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
: > : Ha, I'm sure it could probably be done, but of course "most" of what
: > : the shell does it invoke other programs, so in the common ca
According to Larry Wall:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 12:27:36PM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
> : Ha, I'm sure it could probably be done, but of course "most" of what
> : the shell does it invoke other programs, so in the common case it still
> : wouldn't give you portability to non-Unix-like platforms
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 12:27:36PM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
: Ha, I'm sure it could probably be done, but of course "most" of what
: the shell does it invoke other programs, so in the common case it still
: wouldn't give you portability to non-Unix-like platforms.
Just translate it to a languag
On Sep 18, 2004, at 2:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-09-08 17:37:52 +0100]:
The probing is going to *have* to get written in something that
compiles
down to parrot bytecode to work on the autoconf-deprived systems, so
with
that as a given there's no nee
* Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-09-08 17:37:52 +0100]:
> The probing is going to *have* to get written in something that compiles
> down to parrot bytecode to work on the autoconf-deprived systems, so with
> that as a given there's no need for autoconf ahead of that.
How feasable would
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:00:25 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote (in part):
ajs> All of this depends on if Dan was saying "No autoconf RELIANCE,
ajs> dammit" or actually "No autoconf, dammit". The first is a reasonable
ajs> stance to take given the portability concerns. The second throws away
ajs> useful i
At 4:48 PM -0700 9/9/04, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Timm Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > *) Person building runs platform-specific script
And on VMS you'll need...er...I don't even know *what* incantation
you'd need, but I don't think it'd be pretty.
@BUILD
or possibly
@MAKE
Horrib
Timm Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > *) Person building runs platform-specific script
>
> If that script is going to be platform-specific anyway, why not use Autoconf
> for the platforms that can handle it?
By platform-specific, we mean that on Unix you'll have to run this command:
$ expor
Robert Schwebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sh doesn't run on all platforms that perl has done historically.
>
> On which platforms shall perl run _today_ which is not able to run sh?
Windows, you insensitive clod. :^P
In all seriousness, this is an area where you have to be very careful
to
On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 12:40, Larry Wall wrote:
> have to be careful to separate architectural parameters from policy
> parameters. An architectural parameter says your integers are 32 bits.
> A policy parameter says you want to install the documentation in the
> /foo/bar/baz directory. Cross com
At 11:30 on 09/08/2004 CDT, Timm Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > *) Person building runs platform-specific script
>
> If that script is going to be platform-specific anyway, why not use Autoconf
> for the platforms that can handle it? You'd cover a rather large number of
> platforms that
On Thursday 09 September 2004 02:40 am, Larry Wall wrote:
> An interesting question would be whether we can bootstrap a Parrot
> cross-compile database using autoconf's *data* without buying into the
> shellism of autoconf. Or give someone the tool to extract the data
> from the autoconf database
According to Robert Schwebel:
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:23:36AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > No offense, but it *doesn't* *matter*. We're not using autoconf, as
> > the subject of this thread makes clear. That's not negotiable.
>
> A really convincing argumentation.
Robert, you seem not to
Larry,
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 09:40:44AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> In principle, cross-compile configuration is drop-dead easy. All you
> need is a database of what the probe program *would* have answered
> had you been able to run it on the other machine. (Getting someone
> to write that datab
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:37:52 -0400, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While "Dan is always right" has that nice ego-stroke effect, I don't
> think too many people would or, really, should, stand for it. We'd be
> better served with "The designer makes the final call, for better or
> worse" a
At 4:02 PM + 9/8/04, Herbert Snorrason wrote:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 08:57:22 -0700, Gregory Keeney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rule Number One:
* No one wants the ? [interrobang if your email client or font
doesn't like utf-8]
Rule Number Two:"
* Dan gets the ?
I was thinking more alo
Larry Wall wrote:
In principle, cross-compile configuration is drop-dead easy. All you
need is a database of what the probe program *would* have answered
had you been able to run it on the other machine. (Getting someone
to write that database entry for you is the tricky part.) You also
have to
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 05:41:33PM +0200, Adam Herout wrote:
: For a particular project I am considering using Parrot on a custom
: system based on Texas Instuments DSP processor - this class of systems
: is described as weird rather than prehistoric.
: I hope that Parrot might be the option for
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:30:19AM -0500, Timm Murray wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> I searched the list archives on groups.google.org to try to get more context
> for this discussion, but didn't come up with much that seems relevent. Can
> somebody point me
At 5:34 PM +0200 9/8/04, Robert Schwebel wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:23:36AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
No offense, but it *doesn't* *matter*. We're not using autoconf, as
the subject of this thread makes clear. That's not negotiable.
A really convincing argumentation.
It wasn't an argument
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:46:17 +, Herbert Snorrason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suggest we institute a "Rule One" for Dan. (And number two, too,
> while we're at it.) It'd be easier that way.
That rule already exists, but I think Dan still feels insecure about
it ;) The Larry Way(tm) is to in
According to Robert Schwebel:
> It seems to be a little bit strange to me that the ability to be
> compiled on prehistoric systems seems to be more important than a
> correct cross compiler environment.
Anyone doing cross-compilation should know enough about their target
environment to build a con
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I searched the list archives on groups.google.org to try to get more context
for this discussion, but didn't come up with much that seems relevent. Can
somebody point me to an old thread where Autoconf is discussed?
One other thing:
> *) Person
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 08:57:22 -0700, Gregory Keeney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rule Number One:
> â No one wants the â [interrobang if your email client or font
> doesn't like utf-8]
> Rule Number Two:"
> â Dan gets the â
I was thinking more along the lines of "Dan is always right" and "Da
Herbert Snorrason wrote:
I suggest we institute a "Rule One" for Dan. (And number two, too,
while we're at it.) It'd be easier that way.
Ooh, ooh, I know, I know!
Rule Number One:
â No one wants the â [interrobang if your email client or font
doesn't like utf-8]
Rule Number Two:"
â Dan ge
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:34:50 +0200, Robert Schwebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:23:36AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > No offense, but it *doesn't* *matter*. We're not using autoconf, as
> > the subject of this thread makes clear. That's not negotiable.
>
> A really conv
Robert Schwebel wrote:
It seems to be a little bit strange to me that the ability to be
compiled on prehistoric systems seems to be more important than a
correct cross compiler environment.
On which platforms shall perl run _today_ which is not able to run sh?
For a particular project I am consi
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:23:36AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> No offense, but it *doesn't* *matter*. We're not using autoconf, as
> the subject of this thread makes clear. That's not negotiable.
A really convincing argumentation.
Robert
--
Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix
At 5:16 PM +0200 9/8/04, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> sh doesn't run on all platforms that perl has done historically.
On which platforms shall perl run _today_ which is not able to run sh?
No offense, but it *doesn't* *matter*. We're not using autoconf, as
the subject of this thread makes clear. Tha
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 08:07:52AM -0700, Gregory Keeney wrote:
> Sounds like some of us with cross-compiling experience need to get our
> hands dirty, once the basic build system is in place.
I suppose I can do quite some testing in this case: with PTXdist I can
easily build complete Linux userl
Robert Schwebel wrote:
On which platforms shall perl run _today_ which is not able to run sh?
VMS. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean that nobody uses it.
-garrett
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 04:03:03PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> No. The WinCE port of perl (in the Perl 5 source) is a cross compile on
> Win32, as I understand it. The Zaurus packages are built as a cross compile
> on another Linux, and should be repeatable based on the instructions in
> the dir
Robert Schwebel wrote:
Is my impression correct that nobody has ever tried crosscompiling perl,
and that nobody is really interested in doing it in the future?
I assume that, if you don't take this into account from the beginning it
is not very probable that it will ever work before Perl 7 :-)
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 04:46:28PM +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 09:51:35AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Whether there's a per-platform shell script for the Unices or one
> > generic one that'll work well enough to bootstrap to the "Use parrot
> > because it's nicer" pha
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 09:51:35AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Whether there's a per-platform shell script for the Unices or one
> generic one that'll work well enough to bootstrap to the "Use parrot
> because it's nicer" phase of the build's up in the air. This way
> assumes the user has a comman
At 9:23 on 09/08/2004 EDT, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >- executing programs in any kind of sophisticated way (fork/exec, pipes)
>
> We do get system and popen, though.
Well, system at least. popen is not part of the c89 spec as far as I know.
This URL is a fairly handy refer
At 9:44 AM -0400 9/8/04, Josh Wilmes wrote:
At 9:23 on 09/08/2004 EDT, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>- executing programs in any kind of sophisticated way
(fork/exec, pipes)
We do get system and popen, though.
Well, system at least. popen is not part of the c89 spec as far as I
At 7:22 AM +0200 9/8/04, Robert Schwebel wrote:
Dan,
sorry, although I'm a long term perl user I'm not that familiar with the
internals of the perl development process that I know all the old
stories ;)
The plan looks good, but some things are still unclear to me:
*) Person building runs platfor
At 7:26 PM -0400 9/7/04, Josh Wilmes wrote:
While I am generally in favor of this idea (and I did get the first
miniparrots to work, pretty much as proof of concept), I do think it's
likely to be rather challenging (and interesting):
Remember, _pure_ C89 provides only these headers:
While I am generally in favor of this idea (and I did get the first
miniparrots to work, pretty much as proof of concept), I do think it's
likely to be rather challenging (and interesting):
Remember, _pure_ C89 provides only these headers:
Dan,
sorry, although I'm a long term perl user I'm not that familiar with the
internals of the perl development process that I know all the old
stories ;)
The plan looks good, but some things are still unclear to me:
> *) Person building runs platform-specific script
Platform specific means
41 matches
Mail list logo
