Prev: Bill Cunningham and sockets for the past six years
Next: wait for particular process pid
From: Måns Rullgård on 8 Apr 2010 07:33
Poster Matt <postermatt(a)no_spam_for_me.org> writes:

> I can't seem to find POM anywhere. Your last paragraph instructing me
> to 'man make' and 'info make' in conjunction with my inability to find
> GNU POM suggest to me that your post might be an elaborate joke
> (apologies if not) telling me that I should just stick with 'make'.
>
> Please confirm or deny joke status. :)

POM = Plain Old Make

--
M�ns Rullg�rd
mans(a)mansr.com
From: Poster Matt on 8 Apr 2010 07:57
M�ns Rullg�rd wrote:
> Poster Matt <postermatt(a)no_spam_for_me.org> writes:
>
>> I can't seem to find POM anywhere. Your last paragraph instructing me
>> to 'man make' and 'info make' in conjunction with my inability to find
>> GNU POM suggest to me that your post might be an elaborate joke
>> (apologies if not) telling me that I should just stick with 'make'.
>>
>> Please confirm or deny joke status. :)
>
> POM = Plain Old Make

Well at least I worked out it was probably a joke. The fact that he wrote almost
480 words (I did a word count) made me think it might not be a joke, after all
it was a very time consuming one for him.

For maximum portability should I set the C compiler in my makefile to be gcc or cc?

Thanks.
From: Ersek, Laszlo on 8 Apr 2010 11:12
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Poster Matt wrote:

> For maximum portability should I set the C compiler in my makefile to be
> gcc or cc?

You should set it to "c89", that's the name specified by the SUS. If
you'll release the code publicly, be prepared for massive stares from
confused users, especially on platforms where c89 is not a wrapper script
around gcc, but actually denotes the platform compiler.

(Sorry for interrupting the thread out of nowhere.)

lacos
From: Nicolas George on 8 Apr 2010 11:21
"Ersek, Laszlo" wrote in message
<Pine.LNX.4.64.1004081708410.28077(a)login01.caesar.elte.hu>:
> You should set it to "c89", that's the name specified by the SUS.

SUSv3 has c99, at least. And $(CC) would probably better anyway.
From: Ersek, Laszlo on 8 Apr 2010 12:07
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Nicolas George wrote:

> "Ersek, Laszlo" wrote in message
> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004081708410.28077(a)login01.caesar.elte.hu>:
>> You should set it to "c89", that's the name specified by the SUS.
>
> SUSv3 has c99, at least. And $(CC) would probably better anyway.

Oops, yes. I was blinded by my preferences; sorry. CC seems to default to
c89 in SUSv2, and to c99 in SUSv[34]. Nonetheless, I think it should be
documented for which SUS version(s) (and consequently, which C std
version(s)) the code was written for, so the user can set up one of the
proper environments (if his system supports any) before starting the
build.

Thanks,
lacos
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Bill Cunningham and sockets for the past six years
Next: wait for particular process pid