On 07/31/2012 09:17 PM, Dave Goodell wrote: > On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:02 AM CDT, Dave Goodell wrote: > >> On Jul 12, 2012, at 3:43 PM CDT, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> >>> In particular, I propose the attached patch. Can you give it a try to check >>> whether it works? >> >> I'm currently in the process of running the test suite with the given patch, >> but it almost certainly doesn't work with the PGI 10.x compilers that I have >> handy. I just tried a manual test of the compiler with "-MD,asdf.d" and it >> didn't complain but it also did not generate the expected dependency file. > > Surprisingly, the test suite did pass. But I can't figure out which tests I > should even expect to fail here. A good test for this case needs to use some > per-target flags to build two objects with different names from the same > source. > Perhaps some of the depcomp*.tap tests could be enhanced to cover this use case. I won't have time to look into this soonish though.
> Ideally it would set a -DINCLUDES1 or -DINCLUDES2 depending on which > object is being built, and then have the source file include different > header files. > > Stefano, can you point me towards the correct tests to beef up here? > I guess I still have to write it :-) > I can't promise when I'll get to it though. > > In the meantime, I propose pushing the original patch (plus your > formatting fixup) and then revisiting the "-MD,asdf.d" approach > and tests afterwards. Does that sound reasonable? > Absolutely. I want to have the pgcc support merged in before 1.12.3 is released, so I will merge your original patch in the next days. Follow-up improvements (if any) can easily be merged later. Thanks, Stefano