Re: [9fans] impressive

[Paul Lalonde <plalonde@telus.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I just did it over the last two weeks.  Cross compiles 2.5 platfroms  
(SPUs are strange), with tests and debug targets.  Not too bad if you  
are willing to let *one* person hold the per-directory included- 
makefiles in order.  It makes a huge difference (both things, the  
full dependency tree, and the one person thing).
But the code is a little rude - your world winds up with too many  
parameterized make variables: $($(TARGETOS)$(DIR)BUILDDIR).  And you  
have to use GNU make's target-local variables to remember that state.
It ain't pretty.

Is there a better solution?

Paul

On 8-May-06, at 6:39 PM, quanstro@quanstro.net wrote:

> cross compile with gcc? you MUST be mad! ;-)
>
> recursive make considered harmful.  yadda yadda yadda.  i've never  
> seen
> a reasonable solution to this problem?  while you could build a  
> full dependency
> graph with make or mk, it seems more trouble than it's worth.
>
> i build a system like this for gnu make a year ago.  it was fragile  
> and way too much work
> to maintain.
>
> - erik
>
> On Mon May  8 20:19:44 CDT 2006, plalonde@telus.net wrote:
>>
>> Part of the problem is that autoconf also tries, weakly, to deal with
>> cross-compilation.  It simultaneously gets blamed for the crap make
>> systems that surround most larger systems - recursive make
>> invocations that simply don't have enough of the tree to build non-
>> trivial systems well.  Put those two elements together and you get a
>> real mess.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFEX/p+pJeHo/Fbu1wRAsD1AKDQYaUKb6/RUxx3jSy+nQNIan5U1wCfZFe6
liLHRvL/8/QjjkW8Hd8ZFU4=
=wVrJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----