Re: [9fans] A newbie question... - Plan9

This is a discussion on Re: [9fans] A newbie question... - Plan9 ; On 2008-Feb-3, at 17:19 , Enrico Weigelt wrote: > One of the major problem of autoconf is that It tries to guess around > lots of things, and this often fails or is very unclean (it requires > *really great* ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

  1. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...


    On 2008-Feb-3, at 17:19 , Enrico Weigelt wrote:

    > One of the major problem of autoconf is that It tries to guess around
    > lots of things, and this often fails or is very unclean (it requires
    > *really great* care to produce good code with it). In fact this has
    > nothing to do with portable programming, but working around
    > uncountable
    > of target specifics.


    Autoconf is nothing but a stinking rotten corpse that lives only
    because the cult of GNU adherents cannot (no, refuse to) grok the
    concept of POSIX.

    The last time I ever had the requirement to use 'configure' -- that's
    'configure', not 'autoconf' in all its splendor -- was circa 1992. And
    that was solely thanks to Sun unbundling the C compiler, leading to
    the insane collection of command invocations needed to build something
    as simple as cat.c.

  2. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    On 03/02/2008, at 8:29 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:

    > Autoconf is nothing but a stinking rotten corpse that lives only
    > because the cult of GNU adherents cannot (no, refuse to) grok the
    > concept of POSIX.


    the problem with POSIX is that it doesn't specify enough.

    for instance, if you have to write some code to list the network
    interfaces on a (*nix) machine, you have some that provide a specific
    function to do so (getifaddrs), some where you should use
    SIOCGIFCONF, another where SIOCGLIFCONF is better and one where your
    best bet is to hope the /proc filesystem is mounted and read from that.

    POSIX doesn't help for things like this. and autoconf, for all its
    failings, does.



    d


  3. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    Some other reasons:
    - Some systems (read: Linux) do not have pthreads
    - What if I said I'm running GCC on Microsoft Xenix? Is that POSIX-
    compliant?
    - Curses is not POSIX. It's Single Unix Spec, though.
    - C99 is still new and although it's in POSIX, not many systems have
    it (Plan 9 doesn't have complete C99)

    On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:23 PM, David Arnold wrote:

    > On 03/02/2008, at 8:29 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
    >
    >> Autoconf is nothing but a stinking rotten corpse that lives only
    >> because the cult of GNU adherents cannot (no, refuse to) grok the
    >> concept of POSIX.

    >
    > the problem with POSIX is that it doesn't specify enough.
    >
    > for instance, if you have to write some code to list the network
    > interfaces on a (*nix) machine, you have some that provide a
    > specific function to do so (getifaddrs), some where you should use
    > SIOCGIFCONF, another where SIOCGLIFCONF is better and one where
    > your best bet is to hope the /proc filesystem is mounted and read
    > from that.
    >
    > POSIX doesn't help for things like this. and autoconf, for all its
    > failings, does.
    >
    >
    >
    > d
    >



  4. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    > On 03/02/2008, at 8:29 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
    >
    > > Autoconf is nothing but a stinking rotten corpse that lives only
    > > because the cult of GNU adherents cannot (no, refuse to) grok the
    > > concept of POSIX.

    >
    > the problem with POSIX is that it doesn't specify enough.
    >
    > for instance, if you have to write some code to list the network
    > interfaces on a (*nix) machine, you have some that provide a specific
    > function to do so (getifaddrs), some where you should use
    > SIOCGIFCONF, another where SIOCGLIFCONF is better and one where your
    > best bet is to hope the /proc filesystem is mounted and read from that.
    >
    > POSIX doesn't help for things like this. and autoconf, for all its
    > failings, does.


    sometimes. you should really look at how russ did p9p. he's delt
    with with exactly this problem by writing a small amount of code
    and simply detecting the os in the makefile. there is very little
    os-dependent code in p9p and it is easy to follow what gets
    compiled when.

    (for those following along at home, src/libip/[A-Z]*.c)

    - erik

  5. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    > Some other reasons:
    > - Some systems (read: Linux) do not have pthreads


    incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_...Thread_Library

    > - C99 is still new and although it's in POSIX, not many systems have
    > it (Plan 9 doesn't have complete C99)


    c99 is 9 years old!

    - erik

  6. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:38 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:

    >> Some other reasons:
    >> - Some systems (read: Linux) do not have pthreads

    >
    > incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_...Thread_Library
    >


    Is that integrated into the Linux source code tree or an add-on?

    >> - C99 is still new and although it's in POSIX, not many systems have
    >> it (Plan 9 doesn't have complete C99)

    >
    > c99 is 9 years old!
    >


    Yes, but do all compilers implement 100% of that standard?

    > - erik



  7. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...


    On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 21:51 -0500, Pietro Gagliardi wrote:
    > On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:38 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
    >
    > >> Some other reasons:
    > >> - Some systems (read: Linux) do not have pthreads

    > >
    > > incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_...Thread_Library
    > >

    >
    > Is that integrated into the Linux source code tree or an add-on?


    It is 100% integrated into 2.6.

    >
    > >> - C99 is still new and although it's in POSIX, not many systems have
    > >> it (Plan 9 doesn't have complete C99)

    > >
    > > c99 is 9 years old!
    > >

    >
    > Yes, but do all compilers implement 100% of that standard?


    Most of compilers are more or less 100% compatible. There's
    a part that libc has to do to and that is spotty.

    Thanks,
    Roman.


  8. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    well, I don't get the difference, we have a bunch of standards, my limited
    understanding is that now these .org's have joined forces, and
    everything gets messy, at least for me.

    for instance, APE has lot's of headers with the feature test macro
    _POSIX_SOURCE, which has been superseded by _POSIX_C_SOURCE,
    which should be the same as _XOPEN_SOURCE == 600, which in turn
    is compliant with ISO C!

    so, I really don't get this dance, anyways there is a contrib package in
    my sources dir "posix-man" with the "posix"/xopen/ieee man pages,
    sections 0 and 3.

    http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/...chap02_02.html

    On Feb 4, 2008 11:26 PM, Pietro Gagliardi wrote:
    > Some other reasons:
    > - Some systems (read: Linux) do not have pthreads
    > - What if I said I'm running GCC on Microsoft Xenix? Is that POSIX-
    > compliant?
    > - Curses is not POSIX. It's Single Unix Spec, though.
    > - C99 is still new and although it's in POSIX, not many systems have
    > it (Plan 9 doesn't have complete C99)
    >
    >
    > On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:23 PM, David Arnold wrote:
    >
    > > On 03/02/2008, at 8:29 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
    > >
    > >> Autoconf is nothing but a stinking rotten corpse that lives only
    > >> because the cult of GNU adherents cannot (no, refuse to) grok the
    > >> concept of POSIX.

    > >
    > > the problem with POSIX is that it doesn't specify enough.
    > >
    > > for instance, if you have to write some code to list the network
    > > interfaces on a (*nix) machine, you have some that provide a
    > > specific function to do so (getifaddrs), some where you should use
    > > SIOCGIFCONF, another where SIOCGLIFCONF is better and one where
    > > your best bet is to hope the /proc filesystem is mounted and read
    > > from that.
    > >
    > > POSIX doesn't help for things like this. and autoconf, for all its
    > > failings, does.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > d
    > >

    >
    >




    --
    Federico G. Benavento

  9. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    In article <1202180417.4392.8.camel@goose.sun.com>,
    Roman V. Shaposhnik <9fans@cse.psu.edu> wrote:
    >On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 21:51 -0500, Pietro Gagliardi wrote:
    >> On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:38 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
    >> >> - C99 is still new and although it's in POSIX, not many systems have
    >> >> it (Plan 9 doesn't have complete C99)
    >> >
    >> > c99 is 9 years old!
    >> >

    >>
    >> Yes, but do all compilers implement 100% of that standard?

    >
    > Most of compilers are more or less 100% compatible. There's
    >a part that libc has to do to and that is spotty.


    There are various compiler (and libraries) with [full] support of C99,
    however that's a far cry from most compilers being more or less 100%
    compatible.
    --
    Greg Comeau / 4.3.9 with C++0xisms now in beta!
    Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
    World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
    Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

+ Reply to Thread