Re: DJGPP support for bison

[Tim Van Holder]

On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 18:57, Juan Manuel Guerrero wrote:
>
> > Any particular reason why you use pathconf instead of _USE_LFN?
> 
> No one. Except that I usually try to use ansi/posix functions instead of
> djgpp specialities. Netherless, if you prefer to code this in a different
> way it will be ok with me. I do not care to much about the way the 
> functionality is
> coded as long as it is well done and it works.

I don't mind either; _USE_LFN is simply more convenient to use than
pathconf.  But using pathconf would also provide support for other
POSIXy systems if needed, so it's probably a good idea to use that.

> >  sed or grep that come with build-in DJGPP support. The files created are:
> >  arch/djgpp/config.bat
> >  arch/djgpp/config.in
> >  arch/djgpp/config.site
> >  arch/djgpp/readme.in
> >  arch/djgpp/Makefile.am
> >
> > Ouch.  First of all, none of this should be needed; bison comes with a
> > configure script created by a recent autoconf that should work
> > out-of-the-box for DJGPP.  Additionally, distributing your own
> > config.site and forcing its use is VERY likely to break configuration
> > entirely.  Only a config.site provided by our bash or autoconf package
> > should be used.
> 
> IMHO this is not a good idea. Out-of-the-box configuration almost always 
> implies
> LFN support and this implies the access to some kind of Win9X. This will 
> exclude
> all users of old DOS or clones like freedos (DJGPP is a dos compiler and not 
> a WIN32 one).
> AFAIK this would be against the design rules of DJGPP. To make the point 
> clear,
> I personally have _no_ preferences concerning this issue, but IMHO it is not 
> worth
> to exclude a part of the DJGPP users only to avoid the arch/djgpp stuff. It 
> should be
> clear that a gnu package will never be configurable and compilable 
> out-of-the-box
> without LFN support. If the djgpp-workers want to support plain DOS, then some
> kind of config.bat, config.sed, etc must be supplied.

Hmmm.  I _think_ recent autoconfs should produce SFN-safe configure
scripts (provided that the configure.ac author does nothing that breaks
on SFN, such as request a config.h.in header).  I've set up a virtual
machine running DOS 6.22 so I can test this further; if I have time,
I'll try to build bison out-of-the-box in that VM.
Provided that the configuration & build process works under DOS 6.22,
would you agree that the arch dir is not needed?