Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:13:36 +0530 From: dhruva <dhruvakm@gmail.com> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> Cc: Philip Herron <redbrain@gcc.gnu.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using lex in a shared library Message-ID: <AANLkTilwkjgZ0Be5M3VT5wcSqvBifcGgRlngFwZGy9BF@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100705062756.GA80063@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <AANLkTilp0zvMRbw96cifhIzmT4YbNVkxgOFZFa_nvl2m@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTildN27EcRSXXTpQl5vZD-kczKrIbgERQuiNkiTt@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTik1dsTJYw0jy5mfEljWe-ETH1RJlZ8S4-taV1PV@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTintFOTV_FztqxIVE2d1PI15qIgoljA3_aOPWUGb@mail.gmail.com> <20100705062756.GA80063@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> wrote: > On 2010-Jul-02 23:53:17 +0100, Philip Herron <redbrain@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>>> Although maybe not helpful but have you considered using >>>> automake/libtool instead makes it so much simpler in my opinion. > ... >>Automake will auto-handle Lex and Yacc files too. And is extremely portable. > > You are joking, right? > > Of all the supposedly "portable" build environment tools I've used, > GNU autotools is by far the slowest, most bloated and least portable. > And when you run into problems, you are faced with trying to follow > hundreds of KB of opaque shellscript and obfuscated makefiles. > >From my experience, CMake is the best and hope it gets adopted more widely. I agree the initial effort of getting a cmake based build environment will take sometime but going forward, maintaining it is lot simpler when you care about portability. I do not work for kitware nor anyway involved with cmake apart from being a happy user. Quite a few large projects are moving to cmake. -dhruva
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTilwkjgZ0Be5M3VT5wcSqvBifcGgRlngFwZGy9BF>