Subject: little modif for CVS

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 13:56:48 +0200

Hi,

Would it be possible to fix the automake in the
CVS tree so that if you do not use gcc but cc
instead, it uses the -MDupdate flag instead of -MD
to create dependencies ?

I dunno if it is standard to SGI Irix cc, but I
have either -M or -Mupdate, but -MD generates a
macro definition error.

Thanks!

Cheers
Stephane

-- 
SILICON GRAPHICS                 EUROPEAN MANUFACTURING CENTER
##############################################################
Stephane Rosa                     Tel :     +41 (0)32 843-3638
Business Analyst                  Fax :     +41 (0)32 843-3909
APS/FP  Project                   GSM :     +41 (0)79 448-5335
--------------------------------------------------------------
irc.stealth.net     Euro-IRCNet   IRC :     Clipper on #geneva
ircnoc.neu.sgi.com  SGI Intranet  IRC :         EuroBA on #APS

--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 19:08:45 +0200

>  instead, it uses the -MDupdate flag instead of -MD

forget it, it's a GNU automake crappy default, I
fixed it on my side in /usr/local/share/automake/depend2.am

(Good to know anyway for all those anti-gcc guys ;-))

Cheers
Stephane

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 21 Sep 1999 13:43:58 -0400

>> instead, it uses the -MDupdate flag instead of -MD

 1) No, because automake isn't in the CVS tree, it's on your local
    system.

 2) Building the CVS sources without GCC is not a supported
    configuration; from the docs/DEVELOPERS file:

      | You will need to install several GNU tools to be able to use the cvs
      | sources.  If you do not have these tools available, build from the tar
      | file distribution instead, available from ftp.fvwm.org.
      |
      | To build from the CVS sources, you will need:
      |   * GNU gcc
      |   * GNU make
      |   * autoconf (version >= 2.13)
      |   * automake (version >= 1.4)

    Note that it's automake that imposes these requirements, not FVWM.

 3) There is lots of discussion about these requirements on the automake
    list and I believe the next version (of automake) will relax them.
    But that's an issue for automake, not us.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:24:16 +0200

>      Note that it's automake that imposes these requirements, not FVWM.

Right, but gcc (even 2.8.2) produces dead slow binaries under Irix,
because it is not really optimizing. I never had any problems in
compiling with MIPSPro cc/CC, and Fvwm2 just screams ;-))

>      But that's an issue for automake, not us.

Funny thing: The remarks in depend2.am says : we do NOT use -MD
for several good reasons, and then it is used in the code...

I might subscribe to the automake likst some days :-)

By the way, Irix cc is a bit more careful on the code quality,
and I get several warnings like "int * not compatible with
unsigned int * and so on. If I get a positive reply from you
guys, I can fix them on the latest tree and submit a global
diff patch to the list (I don't have commit access). I think
that compiling without warnings on all the supported platforms
is a must, isn't it ?

Cheers
Stephane

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 24 Sep 1999 11:43:46 -0400

s> Right, but gcc (even 2.8.2) produces dead slow binaries under Irix,
  s> because it is not really optimizing. I never had any problems in
  s> compiling with MIPSPro cc/CC, and Fvwm2 just screams ;-))

(Note the latest GCC is 2.95.1... not that I'm saying that's any better;
I don't have an Irix system--but these versions are under active
development again now that the EGCS team has taken over as the steering
committee for GCC).

I quite believe you about the GCC code on Irix, my point is only that we
don't support the environment you are trying to work in... so we can't
accept bug reports, etc. for it.

If you want to build late(st) FVWM's and you don't want to use the
environment described in the DEVELOPERS file, you should be building the
daily snapshots instead of the CVS source.  That's why we make the daily
snapshots, after all :)

HTH.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:54:54 +0200

> daily snapshots instead of the CVS source.  That's why we make the daily

Another possibility is to 'make distcheck' with gcc first and then
compile the distibution tarball with your compiler of choice. It's
very slow, but the code you get should be okay.

Bye

Dominik ^_^

-- 
Dominik Vogt, Hewlett-Packard GmbH, Dept. BVS
Herrenberger Str.130, 71034 Boeblingen, Germany
phone: 07031/14-4596, fax: 07031/14-3883, [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:51:30 +0200

>  accept bug reports, etc. for it.

well, so how can you support other platforms then ? I'm actually
not having time to _develop_ new stuff, but I thought that fixing
incompatibilities with other compilers would be interesting...

Oh, maybe you mean that fvwm2 is supported ONLY with gcc, even for
users ? Ok then, I just wanted to know :-)

>  daily snapshots instead of the CVS source.  That's why we make the daily

doesn't matter for me, the cvs tree compiles fine now that I have
fixed automake :-)

Cheers, Thanks
Stephane

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:10:38 -0400

> users ? Ok then, I just wanted to know :-)

No, you misunderstand.  Building the CVS sources requires gcc.
(And automake, autoconf, etc.)
When we do a makedist, to create a tarball, ANY compiler can
be used to build the tarball.  (We hope.)

(Its the price you pay to work with the CVS sources.)

--
Dan Espen
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854                     Phone: (732) 699-5570
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:15:40 +0200

>  (Its the price you pay to work with the CVS sources.)

Mmh, well, ok, so I have a statement and a question before
stopping this thread :-)

1) Statement : I _can_ build fvwm from the whole tree without
gcc. I did it and it perfectly works. I understand though, that
any new code I could create wouldn't be accepted as is, unless
compiled and tested under gcc.

2) Question : Is somebody interested in patches that would allow
for clean compiling under other environments ? (Note that this
is also benefit for gcc, since my compiler is much more restrictive
and gives better compatibility warnings).

Cheers
Stephane

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 27 Sep 1999 12:00:27 -0400

%% [email-masked] writes:

  >> (And automake, autoconf, etc.)  When we do a makedist, to create a
  >> tarball, ANY compiler can be used to build the tarball.  (We hope.)

  s> Mmh, well, ok, so I have a statement and a question before
  s> stopping this thread :-)

  s> 1) Statement : I _can_ build fvwm from the whole tree without
  s> gcc. I did it and it perfectly works. I understand though, that
  s> any new code I could create wouldn't be accepted as is, unless
  s> compiled and tested under gcc.

I think you still misunderstand.

Definitely we (want to) support all ANSI C compilers.  We don't require
any GCC-isms which we feel are non-portable (the only potential GCC-ism
we use is alloca, but most systems have that for all compilers these
days and we ship an alloca.c for those that don't).

All we're saying is that the development environment as checked out from
CVS needs GCC.  The "developers" makefiles that automake generates use
GCC-specific flags and features to, for example, create dependency
information.  If you don't have GCC, these things don't work.

When we build a distribution tarball, _that_ codebase is generic and
doesn't require any particular compiler.  When we build the tarball
automake build Makefile.in files that don't require GCC, and those are
used by configure to build Makefile files that don't require GCC.

We will accept any new code you create, whether you've ever compiled it
under GCC or not... or anyway, we won't reject it because you haven't.

All we're saying is that we don't support building our tree as checked
out from CVS with any compiler other than GCC--if you get it to work
that's great, but we can't help you get it to work and we aren't really
interested in patches that might make it work better--any such changes
really ought to be directed to the automake folks.  We use their
environment verbatim and it's not our place (or interest) to maintain
it.  It's purely a development environment issue, not a user environment
issue.

  s> 2) Question : Is somebody interested in patches that would allow
  s> for clean compiling under other environments ? (Note that this
  s> is also benefit for gcc, since my compiler is much more restrictive
  s> and gives better compatibility warnings).

We're always interested in cleaner code, thanks.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:18:11 +0200

>  information.  If you don't have GCC, these things don't work.

Ha ! Now _you_ misunderstand(tm) :-))

It actually *works* for me. I just had to patch an automake file,
because the -MD flag to gcc is replaced by -MDupdate in my cc. That's
it. I've built fvwm from the cvs tree without any more headache, and
I'm running the latest fvwm as I'm writing this. I don't need any
support of any kind on this point, thanks very much for your very
kind and patient answers by the way.

[... clipped ...]
  
>  We're always interested in cleaner code, thanks.

Good ! We both agree on everything now (we always agreed, without
knowing it, that's it :-))

Thanks, Cheers
Stephane