[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: EMX on DOS
Re: EMX on DOS
Mon, 3 Nov 2003 17:57:42 -0500 (EST)
Paul Edwards writes:
> Incidentally, I still haven't found out why when going
> from cvs 1.11.<m> to cvs 1.11.<n> the executable jumped
> in size enormously.
What are you talking about? We've seen no "enormous" jump in executable
size on the test platforms.
> These things are all eliminated if you just provide
> Posix source code. Very simple, very portable.
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your
> C code is portable. C code that depends on other software
> to be installed is not. Portable C code will compile on
> EMX 0.9d. I would never be in the position of having to
> install a different C compiler, just to get the source code to
> compiler. Or a different version of bash. Or a different
> operating system. Or a different installation of a particular
> operating system. That ain't portable!
No, it isn't. And it isn't required for CVS, either. You can always
configure it manually. It's a lot simpler if you have the tools to run
configure, since it will then do all the heavy lifting for you, but it's
not a requirement.
Monopoly is more fun when you make your own Chance cards. -- Calvin
Re: EMX on DOS, Larry Jones, 2003/11/01
Re: EMX on DOS, Paul Edwards, 2003/11/02
RE: EMX on DOS, Rick Genter, 2003/11/03
Re: EMX on DOS, Paul Edwards, 2003/11/04
- Re: EMX on DOS, (continued)