3 ms·
Yeah a lot of the complexity that configure scripts are supposed to solve are massively reduced now. Both because there is better harmonization between platform
by jononor 3y ago
Yeah a lot of the complexity that configure scripts are supposed to solve are massively reduced now. Both because there is better harmonization between platforms, and many checks in a N year old are probably no longer relevant.
So a first pass should probably be to eliminate as much checks as possible. But there will almost always be a need for a couple of build time checks/switches - should be supported by some kind of tooling.
- fl7305 3y agoI'm not very familiar with CMake, would it be viable and better to change over to that?
- jononor 3y agoCmake has a set of standardized macros to perform checks on the platform being built for. Including many specialized for typical usecases, like checking if a C header is present. And the generic CheckCompiles allows specifying a regex to match for check to be considered "failed". https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/manual/cmake-modules.7.html https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/manual/cmake-modules.7.h... So it seems considerably better than configure scripts. Probably also better than my idea :p I don't know how easy it would be for an adversary to do something "underhanded" though, or how easy that would be to spot such.