Re: The Promise of Forth

Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>> That patch looks wrong.  At that point there should be a gforth engine
>> around.  If this does not work, either there's a missing dependency
>> (hmm, yes, I see that there is no dependency on the gforth engine),
>> and/or the FORTHP variable is not ok.
>
>Possible reason is that the non-gmake make finds a different order to
build
>these things. It doesn't hurt to use PREFORTH, because that checks if
there
>is a engine around, and uses that if possible, and the installed Gforth
if
>not.

Given the problems with looping recursive make that I avoided IIRC by
removing dependencies, it's probably better here to use PREFORTH than
to add a dependency on gforth.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2008:
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef08.html