segher at chello.nl
Sat Jan 2 04:38:51 CET 1904
> > I still prefer just requiring gcc-3 (although it currently works "fine"
> > with 2.95 as well) (except on some 64-bit targets).
> Agreed. Though it does not hurt to start looking into portability early
> especially as Paflof is close to complete now.
"close to complete"?!? muahahahahaha!
only 7.3 ("Forth language command group") is anywhere near complete yet.
> > Please keep types.h intact, and have it include an auto-types.h or
> > something like that. Much easier if you want to bypass the automatic
> > stuff for whatever reason.
> It's enough to touch types.h before doing a "make". Another idea would
> be to give a parameter to conf.pl to create a default config. keeping 2
> instances of the same file seems a bit unclean.
touching is not good enough, certainly not when you use CVS. oh, and my
system clock tends to reset itself to 1904.
> > +CC = gcc
> > I removed this for a reason ;) Just CC=gcc make if you need it...
> > +NM = nm -t bsd
> > Not all nm's are GNU nm. Different nm's outputs are similar enough to
> > be parseable with a simple regexp.
> there's 3 output formats with gnu nm - sysv, posix and bsd. To be clean
> we have to check which output format is available and use an according
> regexp for that (hoping that other systems use one of these output
> formats) For now this should be ok, because, as you said, we're still
> GNU cc specific in many other positions.
> > +$CC="gcc -std=gnu9x";
> > +$NM="nm";
> > Better just use sh's already-set variables for this.
> this forbids using conf.pl on the command line, as they're set by
> make, not sh.
I think that's the lesser of two evils...
> > The C compiler already defines __STDC_VERSION__ to 199901L or greater if
> > C99 features are supported.
> I know. I just thought of a theoretical compiler that knows about
> restrict without supporting other C99 features. It seemed wiser to check
> for the used features themselfes, not the standards that say "this
> feature belongs here"
> Uh.. nulling out reserved words...
not. they'll only be nulled out when compiling with a non-C99 compiler, and
it's not a reserved word then :)
> Better than C++ style comments in pure C code ;) And it's the only way
C99 comments, not C++ comments. _of course_ anything C++ is much more
evil than #if 0 ;)
> of doing it "portable" ;) But as John already mentioned, we should
> decide whether we want that code or not and drop it completely in the
> later case.
Well if the signal handler would actually work on _all_ linux systems,
i'd get rid of the code, but i think i'll have to change it back now.
anyway, this (and most other "more evil" parts of paflof) is just in the
"paflof runs as client on a unix host" version of the code (which is the
only one in existance right now, of course).
To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at freiburg.linux.de
with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
http://www.freiburg.linux.de/OpenBIOS/ - free your system..
More information about the openbios