From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20150530061308.Horde.aC_WDskRKnim3lHX6LLxoUF@ssl.eumx.net> <282c8157ab32274a7a57bdaf92cfdb09@proxima.alt.za> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 09:21:45 +0100 Message-ID: From: Charles Forsyth To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3bae938e6b9305174848c6 Subject: Re: [9fans] Ports tree for Plan 9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 56b748a4-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --e89a8f3bae938e6b9305174848c6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 30 May 2015 at 08:21, Jens Staal wrote: > am also interested in seeing how compatible the ported m4 is with GNU m4 > if there are good tests GNU m4 is insane, and completely missed the point about GPM (and thus m4). My m4 port is based on Ritchie's m4, although I might re-do a few things to make it a Plan 9 program and account for a few changes in the C environment. You could put gnu m4 in APE I suppose, but since it's mainly used for autotools which won't work anyway because they aren't portable, I'm not sure what's the point. --e89a8f3bae938e6b9305174848c6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On 30 May 2015 at 08:21, Jens Staal <staal1978@gmail.com> = wrote:
am also interested in seeing how = compatible the ported m4 is with GNU m4 if there are good tests

GNU m4 is insane, and completely missed the point about GPM (and= thus m4).

My m4 port is based on Ritchie's m4, although I might re-do a few = things to make it a Plan 9 program
and acco= unt for a few changes in the C environment. You could put gnu m4 in APE I s= uppose, but
since it's mainly used for = autotools which won't work anyway because they aren't portable, I&#= 39;m not sure what's the point.
--e89a8f3bae938e6b9305174848c6--