Groepaz wrote: > On Friday 23 June 2006 09:05, Adam Dunkels wrote: > > (crossposted to cc65 list, note for UZ: i volunteered to handle the 2.x port > of contiki for the c64, currently trying to just make it compile with cc65) > >> The Makefile.include currently contains a lot of gcc-isms since it has >> only been used with gcc-style compilers. It would be great, however, if >> it could be entirely generic and work for all C compilers and if any has >> ideas on how to make things more generic, feel free to share them :-) > > one problem i have found is that it is assumed that the compiler understands > certain options, such as -c (compile but do not link). not much of a problem > with cc65 (because cl65 _does_ understand it, and cl65 pretty much resembles > what the "gcc" program does) but it'll be a problem with lesser compilers > (such as sdcc *shudder*). [however, maybe some custom rules in the arch > specific makefile can overide this behaviour, didnt try because it doesnt > bother me right now :=P] Yeah, letting the platform/ makefile override the targets in the Makefile.include is probably the best way for such compilers. > the offending code is: > > (somewhere in ./platform/c64/contiki-conf.h) > #define LC_CONF_INCLUDE "lib/lc-cc65.h" > > (in ./core/sys/lc.h) > #ifdef LC_CONF_INCLUDE > #include LC_CONF_INCLUDE > #else /* LC_CONF_INCLUDE */ > #include "sys/lc-switch.h" > #endif /* LC_CONF_INCLUDE */ > > ...is this even legal? mmmh i can see a lot of lesser compilers fail on this > too... maybe some kind of configure script would do the job better than this? > (although i can see other kinds of problems with that). args :/ I talked to Uz about this some time ago and he said that the above code indeed is legal C but that cc65 doesn't support it (yet! :-)) /adam -- Adam Dunkels, Swedish Institute of Computer Science http://www.sics.se/~adam/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Fri Jun 23 13:28:03 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-06-23 13:28:05 CEST