Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...)

[Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>]

Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:32:01PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> 
> >No, I'm talking about improving Autotools to handle some things better
> >than they do now.  Passing the high hurdles required to become part of
> >Autotools - especially compatibility - is part of the goal.
> 
> If you look at the sh scripts generated by autotools one is tempted to
> just ship a small, clean sh, written in C89 with autotools, use that
> and drop the workarounds.

Exactly!

Use an early, small Autoconf script written in very portable shell (as
now) to detect the small set of features needed for this "clean sh",
and a host compiler.  Then build it, then continue in clean sh.

But if you're doing that, why use sh?  It could be a subset of sh with
extensions especially for this job - or something else entirely - to
make Autoconf scripts cleaner, smaller, faster than they are now.  Or
even a tokenised sh, so Autoconf tests run directly on it but are
compact.  Possibly even _more_ portable (no need to depend on quirks
of some utilities; configure scripts more checkable for common
errors).  And easier to configure things on environments with no shell
(i.e. Windows).

It adds an extra requirement for a host C compiler, but that's
probably reasonable these days.

This conversation ought to be heading over to the autotools
lists... if anyone wants to take it up there.

-- Jamie