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

[John Reagan]

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 8:10:42 AM UTC-5, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2016-02-16 07:55:54 +0000, li...openmailbox.org said:
> 
> > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:11:17 -0800 (PST)
> > John Reagan via Info-vax <> wrote:
> >> 
> >> 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?
> 
> While icc does not exist for OpenVMS, specifying icc as the build 
> target for the configure causes the configure scripts to not haul in a 
> pile of gcc dependencies.
> The configure stuff isn't bad, if you have a full gcc tool chain around.
> If you don't, it's often an adventure in substitution and subterfuge.
> llvm has now removed configure support, and is building with cmake.
> Unfortunately and AFAIK, there's not a good cmake for OpenVMS yet.
> 

I actually did a SET FILE/ENTER for icc to point to the cc wrapper and that works fine.  And yes, it was just to avoid the gcc baggage.  

Cmake support is on somebody's radar right now.