[Info-vax] CLI editing, was: Re: VMS - Virtual Terminals - A security risk way back yonder OR was that an Old Wives Tale ?

[lists at openmailbox.org]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:11:17 -0800 (PST)
John Reagan via Info-vax <info-vax at rbnsn.com> wrote:

> On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 1:50:19 PM UTC-5, terry-... at glaver.org
> wrote:
> > On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 11:45:05 AM UTC-5,
> > li... at openmailbox.org wrote:
> > > The autotools scripts often break on anything besides Linux. I can't
> > > count the times I've had problems with them on Solaris or OpenBSD.
> > > Most Linux apps are simply not tested on anything but Linux and gcc
> > > and bash and then only on Intel hardware, so the foregoing should
> > > come as a surprise to nobody. The problem isn't only autotools or
> > > configure, but it certainly starts there. And as soon as you add
> > > non-Intel hardware, non-bash POSIX shell, or a non-gcc compiler to
> > > the equation the fun begins.
> > 
> > VSI (or other folks porting GNUish stuff to VMS) might want to look at
> > the work that's been done in the FreeBSD* ports tree** to reduce
> > dependencies on GNU stuff. 
> 
> configure/make are certainly showing their age.  For example, the next
> release of LLVM will no longer support being built with configure/make.
> They will require CMake as the build tool.  (They support both forms
> today)
> 
> For building LLVM on OpenVMS, I told LLVM's configure script that I was
> building with icc.  If I asked for 'gcc', it made lots of assumptions
> that the entire toolchain was GCC derived.  I did have to do a few manual
> edits on the resulting config.status mostly around the confusion around
> C99 headers and some cc options that it assumed that everybody implements.

Is icc available on VMS or was that just a trick to get LLVM to behave
differently?