From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <2071445dfff98d5102991b81d9832386@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon,  8 May 2006 20:39:31 -0500
From: quanstro@quanstro.net
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] impressive
In-Reply-To: <2F49EE4B-7504-4BEF-AF05-C7260C2E61E7@telus.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4f8c930c-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

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.