Philip,
Thanks for the insightful CMake idea. Could Work.
Doesn't the P in P_cre for PERL? ALL Linux systems have Perl. All windoz
machines CAN easily get it. People want PERL regexps because they like PERL!
windoz do NOT HAVE a bash shell. installing cygwin to get a half-assed
BASH comes at a very high price in bastardizing your machine into a
not-quite Linux, not-quite win, misbegotten kludge.
I thought of hacking that half-a-million-byte monstrosity of a configure
file until I looked at it. Have you ever considered upgrading your PERL_cre
configure script to config.PL???
The DATA STRUCTURES you feebly fumble with in that brain-dead, prehistoric,
anachronism of a macro language could be handled elegantly and with a tenth
of the code in a real data processing language. Like PERL!
There are only ~4 variables you need in a windoz makefile that can not be
determined at build time. Those can be guessed with 99.8% certainty. A
tiny, stupid, simple win_makefile that could be hand hacked would be a
Titanic Leap forward.
Actually, I did the text processing the old fashioned way in the world's
worst text processing language, C! The windoz binaries are 2007 vintage.
Cheerio,
Brian
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:43 AM, <ph10@???> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Brian Barnes wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I am using Strawberry Perl on (dreaded windoz) with full GCC support.
> > Unfortunately, the 18,063 line, (534,803 bytes) configure script does not
> > run. When a config script would print the size of a NYC YellowPages,
> > something has gotten out of control.
> >
> > How do you like the idea of a Perl Makefile.PL (closer to 181 lines) to
> do
> > the same thing? It would run EVERYWHERE without assuming 100% unix
> /bin/sh
> > compatibility.
> >
> > I have to use photoshop so I have to use mean old windoz. This package
> > appears to have zero support for anything not 100% linux. Any semblance
> of
> > a mingw makefile would be a gigantic help.
> >
> > Why can't Perl be as fast as C? :)
>
> I'm sorry, but what have these Perl comments got to do with PCRE?
>
> Or are you asking about compiling PCRE on Windows? If so, have you
> checked out the CMake support? Many Windows users prefer using CMake to
> the ./configure (AutoTools) support.
>
> Philip
>
> --
> Philip Hazel
>
