[Chicken-hackers] Re: separate build directory support for Chicken

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> felix winkelmann <address@hidden> writes:

 >> I have invested a lot of time into learning both Make and Autotools,
 >> and have autoconfiscated quite a few packages duiring the last three
 >> years.  Most of the time, Autotools allows one to reduce some horrid
 >> 1000 lines Makefile into a neat Makefile.am, with just two variables
 >> (foo_SOURCES and bin_PROGRAMS) or so.  It's a sure way to make the
 >> build system more manageable /for me/.

 > The 1000 lines Makefile is still there,

        Well, yes.  And when one uses Chicken, isn't the 100000 lines
        assembly code still there?

 > it's only hidden inside m4 macro packages and obscure shell scripts

        ... I'd call them ``portable''...

 > nobody understands.

        I don't think so.  Personally, I'd say that it wasn't much
        trouble for me to debug `configure' when it breaks.

        I have a little experience with extending Autotools with M4
        macros, though.

 > Additionally, every build-system I've seen so far horribly breaks
 > down if you start doing special things,

        Indeed.  There, one's expected to improve the tool, and it's
        quite different to simply using it.

 > like bootstrapping

        Doesn't the GCC build system support bootstrapping?

 > or cross-compiling,

        Could you name the specific issues Autotools-based build systems
        have with cross-compiling?  As one could see from this
        discussion, I'm quite interested in Autotools, and I have a
        little interest in cross-compilation as well.  I'd appreciate
        any comments regarding the use of Autotools in this particular
        context.

 > or just doing tiny little things slightly differently.

        Yes.

        ... I've been porting some of my AVR assembly language code into
        C recently and was embarrased after realizing that I cannot use
        global register variables in interrupt handlers anymore!  (The
        thing I've used to do in assembly.)

        I had to change my habits then.

 > Once you try to work around the limitation of the build system, it's
 > already too late: the system is not appropriate anymore.

        To summarize my point: aren't the aforementioned problems
        pertinent to any higher-level tools, be it Autotools, LaTeX,
        Chicken, or GNU as?

 > GNU make is the least common denominator, that's why we us it, and
 > there is no alternative, yet.

        I've no objections to the use of GNU Make in Chicken.