Re: compiler
Erik Troan wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Stuart Anderson wrote:
>
> > I had the same thing in mind. lsbcc can actually be a script that
> > calls the correct compiler for LSB as well as reset include path, define/
> > undefine any symbols (__LSB__ ??), etc. In recent work with a cross env, it
> > was similarly useful to have cc, ld, ar and some of the bin utils wrapped in
> > scripts also. We might want to consider something similar if there turns out
> > to be a useful reason.
>
> It can be *whatever*; the spec shouldn't make any promises. I was
> planning on implementing lsbcc as a gcc spec file, but that's not
> critical.
>
> We may want to provide ld and ar ones as well, though I doubt it. I don't
> think folks should ever use ld directly, and ar is extremely independent
> of the build environment.
Forgive me for stepping out of my proper role as observer, but I am curious to
understand the recent discussion on this topic.
Am I to understand that the LSB is going to include specifications for the ways
that programs are to be *built*? As in, your application is LSB-compliant only if
it was built with the LSB scripts? Or will the proposed lsbcc scripts et al just
be convenience scripts for use when building LSB-compliant programs?
In either case, I'm not quite sure I see the point. I thought that the LSB was
supposed to describe the runtime environment that applications can expect, not the
ways in which such applications are developed. As a developer, I would not want
to have to use someone else's script to compile my programs, and I would not want
to be tied to a particular way of compiling and linking my programs and
libraries. Furthermore, there will be more compilers, languages, etc used to
develop LSB applications than the LSB standard could possibly address.
If the purpose of the lsbcc scripts et all is to specify the way that applications
*must* be built, then I think there will be many problems with developers who want
to built LSB-runtime-compliant applications using their own tools their own way.
If the purpose of the lsbcc scripts et all is to suggest a way that applications
*may* be built, then my objections are somewhat less, although I think that
getting into the business of writing development scripts seems like alot more
responsibility than may be prudent for the LSB team to take on.
Thanks for listening,
Bryan
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Ischo Plumb Design Inc
bji@plumbdesign.com http://www.plumbdesign.com
Reply to: