Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:24:26 -0800 From: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Traditional cpp (was: /usr/bin/calendar broken on current) Message-ID: <20121113232426.GA12182@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20121110064621.GA10902@eureka.lemis.com> References: <201211090658.qA96whII081757@pozo.com> <20121109072631.GQ77848@eureka.lemis.com> <509CFC88.7050606@FreeBSD.org> <20121110064621.GA10902@eureka.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:46:21PM +1100, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Friday, 9 November 2012 at 13:52:24 +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > Looks like yet another cpp -traditional abuse. > > Use or abuse? In any case, it's not the only one. In the Good Old > Days people did things like that. So, it seems, does imake, and I'm > sure others will come out of the woodwork. ... > > Clang will most likely never support traditional preprocessing. ... > What we really need is a traditional cpp. That's not difficult: > there's one in 4.3BSD (all 32 kB of source). OpenBSD also had one, > though it's gone now, so presumably that one has a clean license. > Both appear to be from pcc. Should we import it into the tree as, > say, tradcpp? There is also a public domain one in the X11R5 sources. And the well writen http://mcpp.sourceforge.net/ (BSD-style-licensed), with a test suite, etc.. See 'lmcpp-summary-272.pdf' there. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121113232426.GA12182>