Previous mail
Next mail
Unformatted/full headers
Overview 10 days
Subject
Date
Thread
Author
From: Frank Heckenbach
Subject: cgp? (was: GP ;-)
Date: 30 May 2004, 15:34:27
CBFalconer wrote:
> Frank Heckenbach wrote:
> > Grant Jacobs wrote:
> >
> >>> As I said, I don't think "make" is a good thing to think of for a
> >>> *normal* Pascal programmer. We're, of course, deep in the internals,
> >>> but a normal programm doesn't want to (and shouldn't have to) think
> >>> about when a compiler recreates which files. It should just produce
> >>> a correct executable.
> >>
> >> You could try keep it all within gpc as so not to generate another
> >> name that could conflict. Make gpc itself a small program that
> >> manages whatever programs do the actual work.
> >
> > That's what the program in question ("GP") actually is. (So, as I
> > suggested, we could rename the existing gpc executable and call this
> > one gpc. But I'm not sure yet, because it is an incompatible change
> > ...)
>
> But that is what gcc is doing already, except it is orchestrating
> between various languages to arrive at a common executable
> format. Meanwhile it is involving such diverse programs as 'as',
> 'ld', etc.
But in a "C-ish" way: compile a single file, don't care about
dependencies etc.
Keep in mind that automake is a kludged-on extension that never
worked correctly (and probably never could). It's served its time
more or less well, but it isn't a workable solution for the future.
> IMO the thing that is missing in GPC is clear instructions as to
> how to run individual compiles etc. for systems that include units
> and/or modules and/or libraries. Saying "use -automake" does not
> cut it. Of course, that seems to be exactly the problem you are
> trying to solve, but hiding the machiniations behind yet another
> supervisory program does not fill the bill to my mind.
Why not, if I may ask?
> I would rather see a program that scans the various sources,
> starting from the named one, and creates a make file for use by
> gnu make. This is more a Unix philosophy than a C one.
I had thought about it before starting work on "GP", but came to the
conclusion that it didn't really work out. As Waldek explained
recently, the creation of both .gpi and .o files doesn't really fit
with the make idea (single destination), and any possible
work-arounds would at best be kludges.
Besides, not using make, we could be a bit more clever, e.g. not
recompile a module [interface], if the module [interface] text is
unchanged, even if the file was updated. make can't do this without
big kludges (more external programs, timestamps and what not).
(Another thing is that we save one step by doing "GP -> gpc" rather
than "GP -> make -> gpc", but that's a minor point.)
> After
> that a simple script or bat file should be able to replace YASP.
I (had?) hoped that we could do without that, especially since "GP"
is meant to add some config file and options translation mechanism,
so that indeed a user could, after initially setting things up to
this taste, just do `gp myprog' in almost all cases. That's also why
I'd like to have a short name (not least because that's what I
intend to use myself. Currently I do use scripts/aliases around
`gpc', but I hoped to get rid of that with "GP" in place).
> Pascal is a simple language, using it should also be simple.
While there may be debates on the first part (the module concept and
other EP features really have some nontrivial aspects ;-), I agree
on the second part, see the previous paragraph. (And the plain
gcc/gpc interface, especially when automake is removed, certainly
doesn't do that.)
BTW, I wonder if we need the (current) gpc executable at all then.
I'd have to check exactly, but maybe it wouldn't basically do more
than the equivalent of `gcc -lm -lgpc' (and give some different help
output etc.). If we teach "GP" to pass `-lm -lgpc', we could get rid
of the separate gpc executable and call "GP" gpc. But I'm not sure
if everybody would be comfortable with such a change ...
Frank
Previous mail
Next mail
Unformatted/full headers
Overview 10 days
Subject
Date
Thread
Author
Note: This page contains information that does not originate from the owner of this web site, but from the authors of the mails archived. The owner of this web site is not responsible for the content of such information. Any use of that infomation requires the consent of the respective author.
Where WWW addresses (URLs) in the mails archived are marked as hyperlinks, this is only for the comfort of the reader. The content of the web pages linked to like this does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the owner of this web site or of the authors of the mails archived. The owner of this web site is not responsible for the content of such web pages. Those pages are explicitly not to be considered as part of the content of this page, but merely as references.
This page was created by Crystal 0.999 (Linux 2.4.27/i686).