Compiling under Unix/Linux

[Philip Ludlam]

On 9 Jan, in message <0c2e32b24b.Tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk>
  Tony van der Hoff <tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 9 Jan 2003, in message <80292db24b.philip at philipnet.com>,
>Philip Ludlam <philip at philipnet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9 Jan, in message <7f8024b24b.Tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk>
>>   Tony van der Hoff <tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>> [snip huge plans for OSLib]
>> Might I add:
>>  - taking out the way the source files are split into Computer, Core,
>>    Macros, Toolbox, Types and User directories
>
>Well, probably not. It's split that way to accommodate systems with less than
>77 files per directory; for now this still has some legacy value. I've no
>real problem doing it in the source; I don't think anyone would nowadays
>build OSLib under such an archaic system, but the target headers in the deep
>release lib must retain that structure. That in turn would be difficult to
>maintain if the source lost its structure.

Ok. It just felt slightly weird that you had kept the the old hierarchy.

>>  - having the ability to compile OSLib with gcc under RISC OS.
>> 
>Yes, I've never attempted it, but I was under the impression that it was OK.
>In what way does it not work?

Well it's not mentioned as a possibility in the !ReadMe and there are
references to amu and objasm are spread liberally throughout OSLib
(although renaming/copy 'as' to 'objasm' and 'make' to 'amu' may work).
And 'as' doesn't support '-apcs 3/32bit' , it uses '-apcs32' instead.

Yours,

Phil L.
-- 
http://www.philipnet.com