Re: i370 port - constructing compile script

["Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com>]

>> > 2. If the normal way to do things is to parse the make -n output
>> > with perl etc, that's fine, I'll do it that way.  I was just wondering
>> > if the proper way was to incorporate the logic into a Makefile
>> > rule and get that rule repeatedly executed rather than just
>> > having a simple "echo".  It seems to me that having a generic
>> > rule to execute an external script would be neater???
>>
>> I'm not sure what you are suggesting here, but I do know that it
>> wouldn't make sense for us to change the gcc Makefile to use a rule
>> which executes an external script.

I didn't mean use by default.

>> The "normal way to do things" is to use GNU make.  I think you are the
>> first person trying to build gcc without it.

It's also the first native MVS port.

Anyway, since then I had another idea.  I should be able to achieve
the same thing by just changing the C compiler to be "echo" or the
external script replacement.

Then all I need is a consolidated stage 1 target.

But today I spent my time fighting a different battle.

I tried to get configure to use my provided minimal (ie all of C90,
but no extensions) header files, using the --with-root option
and --with-build-root.

But it seemed to ignore those and use the ones on my Linux box,
insisting that sys/types existed etc.  Maybe I need to change my
INCLUDE_PATH or something instead.

> Not the first - BSDs have been known to import GCC sources into their
> repositories and write their own build system using BSD make.  No doubt
> this is a lot of work that needs repeating for each new version imported -
> that's the price you pay if you don't want to use the normal GCC build
> system.

> (And GCC didn't always require GNU make - but the BSDs replacing the build
> system are a much closer analogy here than ordinary builds of old versions
> with other make implementations before GNU make was required.)

Yeah, make isn't available (environment variables aren't available
in batch either), and even if it was, that's not what people want.  People
want SMP/E in fact.  But I don't know SMP/E.  I only know JCL, which
is the normal (and much much simpler) rival for SMP.

I don't think that doing a glorified "make -n" is a radical change to
the existing methodology.  Nor is a make target that just lists all
the stage 1 object files.  I think it would be a neat addition (even
if it remains a patch forever).

BFN.  Paul.