From: david.brown@hesbynett.no   
      
   On 24/10/2025 22:07, Keith Thompson wrote:   
   > David Brown  writes:   
   >> On 24/10/2025 15:27, bart wrote:   
   > [...]   
   >>> Well I built cdecl too, under WSL. Jesus, that looked a lot of work!   
   >>   
   >> I have no experience with WSL, so I can't comment on the effort   
   >> there. For my own use on a Linux system, I had to install a package   
   >> (apt-get install libreadline-dev), but that's neither difficult to do,   
   >> or time-consuming, and it was not hard to see what was needed.  Of   
   >> course, a non-programmer might not have realised that was needed, but   
   >> if you are stumped on a configure script error "readline.h header not   
   >> found, use --without-readline" and can't figure out how to get   
   >> "readline.h" or configure the program to avoid using it, and can't at   
   >> least google for help, then you are probably not the target audience   
   >> for cdecl.   
   >   
   > WSL, "Windows Subsystem for Linux" (which should probably have been   
   > called "Linux Subsystem for Windows") provides something that looks just   
   > like a direct Linux desktop system.  It supports several different   
   > Linux-based distributions.  I use Ubuntu, and the build procedure under   
   > WSL is exactly the same as under Ubuntu.   
   >   
      
   Sure.  I know what WSL is, I just haven't used it.  (In my office I have   
   a Windows machine and a Linux machine, and it's not often that I need to   
   use more than a basic set of msys2 stuff on Windows or Wine on Linux,   
   because I can usually run things on their "native" OS.)   
      
   >>> However, it took me a while to find where it put the executable, as   
   >>> the make process doesn't directly tell you that. It seems it puts it   
   >>> inside the src directory, which is unusual. It further appears that   
   >>> you have to do 'make install' to be able to run it without a path.   
   >>   
   >> I agree that putting the executable in "src" is a little odd.  But   
   >> running "make install" is hardly unusual - it is as standard as it   
   >> gets.   (And of course there are a dozen other different ways you can   
   >> arrange to run the programs without a path if you don't like "make   
   >> install".)   
   >   
   > Putting the executable in src is very common for this kind of package.   
   > I generally don't notice, since I always run "make install", which knows   
   > where to find the executable and where to copy it.   
   >   
      
   Maybe I am coloured by my preferences - I prefer to keep the build in a   
   tree adjacent to the source code, rather than in the source code   
   directories, at least for projects of a certain size.  Of course you   
   (and others) are right that lots of builds /do/ make the executable in   
   the source directory.   
      
   > [...]   
   >   
   >>> That program is 2.8 MB (10 times the size of my C compiler).   
   >>   
   >> First, as usual, nobody cares about a couple of megabytes.  Secondly,   
   >> if you /do/ care, then you might do at least a /tiny/ bit of   
   >> investigation.   First, run "strip" on it to remove debugging symbols   
   >> - now it is a bit over 600 KB.  By running "strings" on it, I can see   
   >> that about 100 KB is strings - messages, rules, types, keywords, etc.   
   >   
   > It's easier than that.  The Makefile provides an "install-strip" option   
   > that does the installation and strips the executable.  A lot of packages   
   > like this support "make install-strip".  For those that don't, just run   
   > "strip" manually after installation.   
   >   
      
   Yes.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)