You're welcome! And replacing the GNU bc after this upcoming release sounds great to me.
Gavin H. On Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 17:04 Douglas R. Reno via lfs-dev < [email protected]> wrote: > > On 2/1/19 4:43 PM, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: > > On 02/01/2019 03:49 PM, Gavin Howard via lfs-dev wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> I am the author of a bc with GNU extensions > >> (https://github.com/gavinhoward/bc) that enables it to help build the > >> Linux kernel. I think that my bc would be useful in Linux from > >> Scratch. > >> > >> I have run through the entire LFS book with nothing changed except to > >> replace GNU bc with the current release of my bc > >> (https://github.com/gavinhoward/bc/releases/tag/1.1.3). > >> > >> The required instructions are: > >> > >> <<Begin instructions>> > >> Prepare Bc for compilation: > >> > >> PREFIX=/usr CC=gcc CFLAGS="-std=c99" ./configure.sh -G -O3 > >> > >> The meaning of the configure options: > >> > >> * PREFIX=/usr > >> Like --prefix in other packages. > >> * CC=gcc > >> Set the C compiler. This package defaults to c99, which doesn't > >> exist. > >> * CFLAGS="-std=c99" > >> Sets the C standard that gcc uses to be C99. > >> * -G > >> Disables tests in the test suite that requires another bc to > >> generate results for. > >> * -O3 > >> Enables optimization. This bc gets an order of magnitude more > >> performance from optimizations, and these optimizations have been > >> tested. > >> > >> Compile the package: > >> > >> make > >> > >> If desired, test bc: > >> > >> make test > >> > >> Install the package: > >> > >> make install > >> <<End instructions>> > >> > >> Would there be interest in switching to this new bc? > > > > I would be open to this. The instructions seem to be a lot simpler > > than what we have now. I'm interested in other opinions. In any case > > I think we would postpone this until after our next release. (March 1st) > > > > I do have one concern. There appear to be four releases in three days > > (1.1.0, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 1.1.3) in three days. We really need > > something a bit more stable than that. > > > > -- Bruce > > > I am open to this as well. The release cadence seems to be quite often > though, we would prefer it to slow down first. I think after March 1st > is a good idea. > > It's certainly a whole lot easier to build than the one that is in the > book right now. > > Thanks for writing to us, Gavin! > > -- > http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ > Unsubscribe: See the above information page
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
