Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>