the
necessary bits for ARM to have a proof of concept.
Robert
--
Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de
Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686
Hornemannstraße 12, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany
Phone
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. R
the system, so working in
less situations and being incompatible.
Robert
--
Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de
Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686
Hornemannstraße 12, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany
Phone: +49-5121-28619-0 | Fax: +49-5121-28619-4
do a complete perl build on something like my 30 MHz ARM7
:-)
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.
Robert
--
Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutron
; take suggestions or wholesale direction here.
Well, I still don't understand what the _technical_ arguments against
autotools are, besides not being written by LW ;)
Some pro arguments:
- runs on about all available platforms today, configure written in sh
- does proper cross compil
l in this
case run on i686.
Robert
--
Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de
Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686
Hornemannstraße 12, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany
Phone: +49-5121-28619-0 | Fax: +49-5121-28619-4
he time when perl 5 started metaconfig was surely a good thing,
but I doubt it can do what autotools is able to manage today. But that's
probably a political decision.
Robert
--
Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de
Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 02:00:14PM +0200, Jens Rieks wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 September 2004 07:52, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> > Would autoconf/automake be an option for the C part of parrot?
> No, its only available on a few systems.
How do you mean that? You surely don't want to
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 07:26:22AM +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> If I can help testing cross compilation stuff please tell me.
> Unfortunately I don't know enough of the Perl/Parrot internals to be
> really useful for coding, but anyway.
Would autoconf/automake be an option for
7;t know enough of the Perl/Parrot internals to be
really useful for coding, but anyway. Being able to use Perl on embedded
systems would be pretty cool - it was never really possible with perl 5.
Robert
--
Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de
Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Scien
Parrot::Configure::RunSteps::runsteps('Parrot::Configure::RunSteps', 'cc',
'arm-softfloat-linux-gnu-gcc', 'ld', 'arm-softfloat-linux-gnu-gcc', 'debugging', 1)
called at Configure.pl line 376
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp/parrot>
--8&l
11 matches
Mail list logo
