digitalmars.D.announce - Have Win DMD use gmake instead of a separate DMMake makefile?
- Nick Sabalausky (25/25) Aug 10 2013 Although it took longer than I expected to get around to it, I'm
- Nick Sabalausky (4/5) Aug 10 2013 Shoot, sorry, can someone delete this? I meant to post to
Although it took longer than I expected to get around to it, I'm working on a release-generator tool for DMD. I'm finding that a very significant amount of the effort involved (much more than I expected) is discovering and dealing with all the fun little differences between the posix and win32 makefiles (and now we have some win64 makefiles as well). Efforts can be made to decrease these differences, but simply having them separate makefiles in the first place (let alone using completely different "make"s: GNU make vs DM make) is a natural invitation for divergence. No disrespect intended to Digital Mars Make, but since GNU make appears to be more feature-rich, have wider overall adoption, and is freely available on Windows as a pre-built binary <http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/make.htm>: Would it be acceptable to use gmake as *the* make for DMD? Ie, either convert the windows makefiles to gmake, or expand the posix makefiles to support windows? I'd be willing to give it a shot myself, and I could trivially write a small batch utility to download Win gmake and put it on the current PATH, so that nobody has to go downloading/installing it manually. I would do this *after* finishing the release-generator tool, but afterwords it would allow the tool's implantation to be greatly simplified. Is this something that would be acceptable, or does building DMD for Windows need to stay as DM make?
Aug 10 2013
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:27:34 -0400 Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:[...]Shoot, sorry, can someone delete this? I meant to post to "digitalmars.D", not D.announce.
Aug 10 2013