* Modernizing autotools and assuming C89 C library [not found] <YyQHmtaArxJEq9RI.ref@spikycactus.com> @ 2022-09-16 5:20 ` Mike Gran 2022-09-30 3:16 ` Mike Gran 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Mike Gran @ 2022-09-16 5:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guile-devel Hello Guile Devel, I pushed a git branch: wip-modernize-autotools. It removes some obsolete tests by presuming we at least have a C89-compliant C library. It also uses LT_INIT for libtool, and removes some macros that autoconf has deprecated. I thought about continuing on by presuming that we have a C99-compliant C library, but, I figured I'd stop at C89/C90 and touch base first. Since most of these header and function tests are for ancient or odd architectures, I tested it on Cygwin and MinGW. (Note that the main branch compiles on MinGW but doesn't run. So I only tested that it compiles.) Let me know what you think. Thanks, Mike Gran ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Modernizing autotools and assuming C89 C library 2022-09-16 5:20 ` Modernizing autotools and assuming C89 C library Mike Gran @ 2022-09-30 3:16 ` Mike Gran 2022-10-12 20:27 ` Ludovic Courtès 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Mike Gran @ 2022-09-30 3:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guile-devel On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 10:20:26PM -0700, Mike Gran wrote: > Hello Guile Devel, > > I pushed a git branch: wip-modernize-autotools. > > It removes some obsolete tests by presuming we at least have a > C89-compliant C library. It also uses LT_INIT for libtool, and removes > some macros that autoconf has deprecated. I know patches like this are unlikely to spark enthusiasm or review because it is autotools, but, I think presuming a C89 C library is a safe bet. I'll wait a couple more weeks and if I don't hear anything to the contrary, I'll push it to main. Respectfully, Mike Gran ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Modernizing autotools and assuming C89 C library 2022-09-30 3:16 ` Mike Gran @ 2022-10-12 20:27 ` Ludovic Courtès 2022-10-12 21:56 ` Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2022-10-12 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guile-devel, Mike Gran Hi Mike, Mike Gran <spk121@yahoo.com> skribis: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 10:20:26PM -0700, Mike Gran wrote: >> Hello Guile Devel, >> >> I pushed a git branch: wip-modernize-autotools. >> >> It removes some obsolete tests by presuming we at least have a >> C89-compliant C library. It also uses LT_INIT for libtool, and removes >> some macros that autoconf has deprecated. Sounds good! > I know patches like this are unlikely to spark enthusiasm > or review because it is autotools, but, I think presuming a C89 > C library is a safe bet. No no, I actually find it quite exciting! :-) Seriously, it’s good to see old cruft vanish. I’ve looked at the commits on that branch and they all LGTM. Regarding <time.h>, we’ve actually been using Gnulib’s headers, so most likely the difference wasn’t relevant anymore. So: LGTM! It would be good to have some testing on OSes other than GNU/Linux eventually (I’m looking at you, Greg ;-)). Thanks, Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Modernizing autotools and assuming C89 C library 2022-10-12 20:27 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2022-10-12 21:56 ` Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide @ 2022-10-12 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: Mike Gran, guile-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1199 bytes --] Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes: > Hi Mike, > > Mike Gran <spk121@yahoo.com> skribis: > >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 10:20:26PM -0700, Mike Gran wrote: >>> I pushed a git branch: wip-modernize-autotools. >>> >>> It removes some obsolete tests by presuming we at least have a >>> C89-compliant C library. It also uses LT_INIT for libtool, and removes >>> some macros that autoconf has deprecated. … >> I know patches like this are unlikely to spark enthusiasm >> or review because it is autotools, but, I think presuming a C89 >> C library is a safe bet. > > No no, I actually find it quite exciting! :-) Same here! I tried many different build tools over the past years, and I was surprised to find that autotools turned out to be the best choice when the my projects did not exactly match widespread patterns. Autotools are one of the few tools that actually solved bootstrapping, and improvements in autotools provide huge benefits throughout the free software toolchain. So please forgive my non-technical post, and thank you very much for your work! Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein, ohne es zu merken. draketo.de [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1125 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-10-12 21:56 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <YyQHmtaArxJEq9RI.ref@spikycactus.com> 2022-09-16 5:20 ` Modernizing autotools and assuming C89 C library Mike Gran 2022-09-30 3:16 ` Mike Gran 2022-10-12 20:27 ` Ludovic Courtès 2022-10-12 21:56 ` Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).