Recently, OpenBSD developers has shown increased interest in the "Portable C Compiler". PCC's cpp is pretty ugly and there has been talk of replacing it with mcpp. This seems to have been rejected for the moment, but there's probably going to be a way to use an alternate cpp. I think simply switching to mcpp would be good both for PCC and mcpp - IMHO, PCC barely has the resources to upgrade and maintain its cpp, and mcpp would be even more tested.
"I think it's worth thinking about, but not in the near future, better to fix the reported bugs at the moment. The in-tree cpp is quite stable even if it is ugly."
Thanks for the notice. I'm glad to hear that OpenBSD is
going to distribute mcpp as an alternate preprocessor for
But, I'm now going to release mcpp V.2.7 in a few weeks. In
addition, I have no experience on OpenBSD nor PCC thus far.
I will try to port mcpp to OpenBSD and PCC on the next-to-
next release (say V.2.7.1 or V.2.8).
I apologize if I mislead you in any manner (English is not my native language), but I did not say that OpenBSD is about to distribute mcpp as an alternate cpp implemtation.
I wanted to say that the idea of using mcpp as the preprocessor has recieved a favourable reception on the PCC compiler mailing list (though they do not plan on doing so for the near future), and that patches to use mcpp as an alternate cpp have been posted.
I think that if you were to communicate your willingness to port mcpp to the PCC maintainer, he may commit to switch to your excellent preprocessor in the future.
 Maintainer: Anders Magnusson <firstname.lastname@example.org>. This isn't unfortunately so clear from the PCC webpage ( http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~ragge/pcc/ ).
Sorry, I confused PCC mailing list with OpenBSD.
I will touch to the author of PCC once I get ready.
Log in to post a comment.