Re: include file problems

[Stephen Usher <Stephen.Usher@earth.ox.ac.uk>]

>>>Of course I'd really prefer to make everything in sys/ a symbolic link
>>>but then everyone would need minixfs or unixmode and gzip/gtar.  Hum.
>>
>>I'd prefer the opposite.. the root include directory is already too
>>cluttered (and hence slow to search on a TOS file system) as it is.
>
>Like I said, everyone would need minixfs.  The fact that TOS directory
>searches take forever is just another point in minixfs's favor.

I agree.

>>It would probably be a good idea if the MiNTlibs were broken up into
>>subsections which would be placed in subdirectories. This would probably
>>speed up compile times due to the decrease in directory search time. It
>>would probably also aid development, machine support etc could be
>>distinguished from Unix compatability etc etc etc.
>
>It would also give me a large pain in the ass.

Yes it would... to begin with at least. Once the major reorganisation had
been done it would be far easier to maintain. It would also allow the
complete merging of the TOS and MiNT libraries for all compilers into the
one directory tree if it were a join task taken on by all the maintainers.

Much of the basic code doesn't change in the libraries... you'd be able to
forget about those bits of code.

Also... you could farm out sub-sections of the libraries to subsiduary
maintainers who could generate unified patches for those directories.

At the moment C libraries for the Atari computers are a hotch-potch mess. We
need to unify them and standardise asap IMHO so code will be able to be
compiled using any of the compilers without hassle, at least the free-ware
compilers. Maybe we could get the commercial compiler producers to get in
line too.

(By the way.... has anyone fixed scanf() yet? :-))

>
>Producing these distributions is already enough of a hassle with about
>6 directories to maintain (and I need to produce 2 different sets of
>diffs in 3 of those.)  See Makefile.adm and MKDIFFS and MKLOG.  Sorry,
>but even though I agree it would be prettier if it were more organized,
>I refuse to make this even more difficult on myself.
>
>>Also, anyone thought about moving all the Atari-only headers into
>><atari/*.h>, MiNT-only (ie not Unix compatable ones) into <mint/*.h>,
>>TOS-only ones into <tos/*.h> etc etc etc? I know this would cause a few
>>problems to begin with, but it will be more in the spirit of OpenSystems and
>>POSIX etc. I hope we're all trying to make the Atari development environment
>>as close to a "standard" environment as possible.
>
>Also not gonna happen.  For most of the same reasons.  Unless, as
>stated in a previous message, someone can point me to some standard that
>the current organiztion of the headers violates.

None other than it's a complete mess with everything just thrown into the
same directory! We're going to have sub-directories for a whole lot of new
stuff once the socket and other stuff is fully integrated.. ie. <un/*.h>,
<net/*.h>, <netinet/*.h>, <protocols/*.h> etc... oh and I forgot..
<posix/*.h>.

Doing it now will probably save a greater pain later.

>
>Cheers,
>entropy
>
>--
>entropy -- it's not just a good idea, it's the second law.
>Personal mail:      entropy@gnu.ai.mit.edu
>MiNT library mail:  entropy@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu

Steve

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Systems Administrator, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Oxford University.
E-Mail: steve@uk.ac.ox.earth (JANET) steve@earth.ox.ac.uk (Internet).
Tel:- Oxford (0865) 282110 (UK) or +44 865 282110 (International).