Using UNIX command line to compile with MSVC
on
Compiling Under Wine
·
· Score: 1
You should be able to use the cc front end that comes with UWIN as a front end for MSVC that you are running with WINE. This will allow you to use UNIX Makefiles to compile using MSCV. It also will allow you do use UNIX style file names and compile options.
I haven't tried compiling the cc front end to MSVC on UNIX/Linux, but you should be able to compile it using MSVC and run it under WINE.
The source code is part of the UWIN development package which you can download from http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/uwin/.
I read all the comments related to AT&T's Korn Shell Source Code Released posting and decided to provide some additional information that should clear up so many misconceptions. I will also try to get a FAQ on the kornshell.com site to clarify many other points as well.
First of all, I would like to thank they authors of bash, pdksh, and zsh for their valuable contributions. I have tried to provide information on changes to ksh so that these shells could add these features in a compatabile way.
I will respond to some of the comments here:
1. Too little too late. This may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant. At this point, it's too early to make such a statement -- the user community will decide. I would have prefered to make this OpenSource from the beginning but I did not have this option. It has taken a lot of effort to get this source released at all. Note that ksh93 is only a part of this AT&T open source distribution and that there are tools that have no other UNIX/LINUX equivalent.
2. bash is much better than ksh. These comments have no information that would make them meaningful without specific examples. What version of ksh and what version of bash? I am interested in hearing which features of bash are missing from ksh93 (see point #5).
3. zsh is better than ksh. Although zsh has an impressive set of features, it is not POSIX compatible making it difficult to write portable scripts. I am interested in hearing from zsh users what *language features* are missing in ksh93 (I am aware of most of the interactive enhancements).
4. tcsh is better than ksh. Irrelevant. tcsh is based on csh, which is generally agreed not to be a good scriping language. So why compare it? See "csh programming considered harmful" by Tom Christiansen (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-why not)
5. There are some features in ksh93i that some users seem to be unaware of. Several of these are not in bash, zsh, or pdksh. a. File and command name completion (using tab in viraw mode). b. Key binding (arrow keys work on most systems by default). c. Process substitution, e.g. command1 ( command2 ) d. Ability to connect to tcp or udp connections using /dev/tcp/hostname/portno with redirections. e. Complete ANSI-C floating point arithmetic, including math functions. f. Complete ANSI-C printf formatting with several extensions including date/time foratting using %T. g. ANSI-C string input using $'...'. (I believe zsh has this). h. Associative arrays. i. Extended regular expression matching/replacement including backreferences for shell variables. j. Runtime loading of extensions including builtins. There is an API for referencing ksh93 internals. k. Active variables. The ability to associate processing functions with shell variables (similar to traces in tcl). l. Compound objects, useful for implementing data structures. m. Reference variables for passing variables by name. n. The shell is written as a library that can be reused in other commands. For example, dtksh which combines ksh93 with X11 and Motif, and tksh which combines ksh93 with tcl/tk.
5. Confusion about the licensing terms. The kornshell.com home page hasn't been updated yet so it still contains outdated references to commercial and educational uses. There is no such distinction. The license does allow for commercial distribution of binaries and/or source. We do not have OSF certification as of yet, but I do think that the license satisfies all of the OpenSource principles. The license does not have the GNU GPL restrictions.
6. nmake is not Microsoft nmake. It certainly is not. It is simply the best make program that I have every seen. The Makefiles are consice and protable. No makefile or dependency generators are needed. It can generate both UNIX makefiles and Microsoft nmake files for systems that do not have AT&T nmake.
Slashdot Mirror
You should be able to use the cc front end that comes with UWIN as a front end for MSVC that you are running with WINE. This will allow you to use UNIX Makefiles to compile using MSCV. It also
will allow you do use UNIX style file names
and compile options.
I haven't tried compiling the cc front end to MSVC on UNIX/Linux, but you should be able to compile it using MSVC and run it under WINE.
The source code is part of the UWIN development package which you can download from http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/uwin/.
I read all the comments related to AT&T's Korn Shell Source Code Released
y not)
/dev/tcp/hostname/portno with redirections.
posting and decided to provide some additional information that
should clear up so many misconceptions. I will also try to get a FAQ
on the kornshell.com site to clarify many other points as well.
First of all, I would like to thank they authors of bash, pdksh,
and zsh for their valuable contributions. I have tried to
provide information on changes to ksh so that these shells
could add these features in a compatabile way.
I will respond to some of the comments here:
1. Too little too late. This may or may not be true, but it
is irrelevant. At this point, it's too early to make such
a statement -- the user community will decide. I would have
prefered to make this OpenSource from the beginning but I did
not have this option. It has taken a lot of effort to get
this source released at all. Note that ksh93 is only a
part of this AT&T open source distribution and that there are
tools that have no other UNIX/LINUX equivalent.
2. bash is much better than ksh.
These comments have no information that would make them
meaningful without specific examples. What version of ksh
and what version of bash? I am interested in hearing which
features of bash are missing from ksh93 (see point #5).
3. zsh is better than ksh.
Although zsh has an impressive set of features,
it is not POSIX compatible making it difficult to write
portable scripts. I am interested in hearing from zsh
users what *language features* are missing in ksh93
(I am aware of most of the interactive enhancements).
4. tcsh is better than ksh.
Irrelevant. tcsh is based on csh, which is generally agreed
not to be a good scriping language. So why compare it?
See "csh programming considered harmful" by Tom Christiansen
(http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-wh
5. There are some features in ksh93i that some users seem to be
unaware of. Several of these are not in bash, zsh, or pdksh.
a. File and command name completion (using tab in viraw mode).
b. Key binding (arrow keys work on most systems by default).
c. Process substitution, e.g. command1 ( command2 )
d. Ability to connect to tcp or udp connections using
e. Complete ANSI-C floating point arithmetic, including
math functions.
f. Complete ANSI-C printf formatting with several extensions
including date/time foratting using %T.
g. ANSI-C string input using $'...'. (I believe zsh has this).
h. Associative arrays.
i. Extended regular expression matching/replacement including
backreferences for shell variables.
j. Runtime loading of extensions including builtins.
There is an API for referencing ksh93 internals.
k. Active variables. The ability to associate processing
functions with shell variables (similar to traces in tcl).
l. Compound objects, useful for implementing data structures.
m. Reference variables for passing variables by name.
n. The shell is written as a library that can be reused
in other commands. For example, dtksh which combines
ksh93 with X11 and Motif, and tksh which combines
ksh93 with tcl/tk.
5. Confusion about the licensing terms.
The kornshell.com home page hasn't been updated yet so it still
contains outdated references to commercial and educational
uses. There is no such distinction. The license does
allow for commercial distribution of binaries and/or source.
We do not have OSF certification as of yet, but I do think
that the license satisfies all of the OpenSource principles.
The license does not have the GNU GPL restrictions.
6. nmake is not Microsoft nmake.
It certainly is not. It is simply the best make program
that I have every seen. The Makefiles are consice and
protable. No makefile or dependency generators are needed.
It can generate both UNIX makefiles and Microsoft nmake
files for systems that do not have AT&T nmake.