Re: [9fans] Good enough approximation for ape/pcc

[uriel@cat-v.org]

Writing code that will compile with ?c is just matter good style, ie.,
not (ab)using cpp, not using gcc extensions and so on; see
/sys/doc/comp.ps for details. Ape doesn't not even come into the
picture, no sane C code should ever need to use cpp(1)

Figuring out if the builtin preprocessor will handle your code should
be obvious, but if you really want to test, you could use the port of
the compilers that is part of Inferno.

And if you have the disgrace of having to write software under lunix,
I would recommend using the p9p libs and doing native ports
to Plan 9. Or just use Limbo and Inferno and be happy.

Ape is an unfortunate historical aberration, lets leave it at that and
not write new code that depends on it.

uriel

> On 4/8/06, Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com> wrote:
>> > this is just to assist me in porting some stuff into my plan9 box
>>
>> Just use pcc directly.  All the relevant differences are in
>> #include files, not compiler flags.
>>
>
> did you mean use gcc directly?
> I am not sure If I understood you correctly but to clarify my original question.
>
> Sometimes when I dont have access to my plan 9 system and my only computer
> is a linux box I want to check if a piece pf code will compile under ape.
>
> is there a way to use gcc so that it will behave more like the ape tools?
>
>
> --
> Public PGP/GnuPG key (http://www.fernski.com)
> pub 1024D/3576CA71 2006-02-02 Fernan Bolando
> Key fingerprint = FDFE C9A8 FFED C1A5 2F5C EFEB D595 AF1C 3576 CA71