Hello, Thomas Martitz <ku...@rockbox.org> writes:
> Am 23.04.2017 um 18:39 schrieb Mathieu Lirzin: > >>> From 8cd0a71abac70bbdcaac804dc7964fa9f34753a0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Thomas Martitz <ku...@rockbox.org> >>> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:41:59 +0100 >>> Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Shorter object file names under subdir-objects >>> >>> With the %reldir% feature, object file names can become very long, because >>> the >>> file names are prefixed with the %canon_reldir% substitution. The reason is >>> to >>> achieve unique object file names when target-specific CFLAGS or similar are >>> used. When subdir-objects is also in effect, these long file names are also >>> placed in potentially deep subdirectories. >>> >>> But with subdir-objects this is unnecessary, since uniqueness of the object >>> file names is already achieved by placing them next to the unique source >>> files. >>> >>> Therefore, this changes strips paths components, that are caused by >>> %canon_reldir% or otherwise, from the object file names. The object file >>> name >>> is prefixed by the target in case of target-specific CFLAGS. As a result, >>> the >>> build tree looks less scary and many cases where $var_SHORTNAME was >>> necessary >>> can now be avoided. Remember that the use of $var_SHORTNAME is discouraged >>> (and >>> is not always an option since it does not work inside conditionals). >>> >>> There is one exception to the above: if the same source file is linked to >>> separate programs/libraries with per-executable flags and the >>> programs/libraries have identical names, then uniqueness of truncated object >>> file names is broken. Therefore the truncation is prevented for these >>> targets >>> if there happens to be identically named progams or libraries, >>> >>> Example: >>> previously: >>> sub/Makefile.am: >>> AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = subdir-objects >>> bin_PROGRAMS += %D%/foo >>> %C%_foo_CFLAGS = $(AM_CFLAGS) -g >>> >>> resulted in objects: >>> sub/sub_foo-foo.o >>> >>> now object file name is: >>> sub/foo-foo.o >>> --- >>> NEWS | 6 +++ >>> bin/automake.in | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >>> t/list-of-tests.mk | 1 + >>> t/subdir-objects-objname.sh | 115 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 4 files changed, 207 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 t/subdir-objects-objname.sh >> >> [...] >> >>> From 5cf501dd932b4aabcc60b489e4f19c2ad8a757cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Mathieu Lirzin <m...@gnu.org> >>> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:19:15 +0200 >>> Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Test that should pass. >>> >>> The test ensures that programs with equal names get unique object files even >>> if object file name truncation is in effect. >>> --- >>> t/list-of-tests.mk | 1 + >>> t/subobj-objname-clash.sh | 58 >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 t/subobj-objname-clash.sh >> >> [...] >> >>> From 508b7e19745d88dbd1100b403fec440abfd151bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Thomas Martitz <ku...@rockbox.org> >>> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 00:51:44 +0200 >>> Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Extend subobj-objname-clash.sh test with such that it >>> also looks for clashes in libraries. >>> >>> --- >>> t/subobj-objname-clash.sh | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- >>> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> At first glance, I think it would be reasonable to reduce the 3 tests to >> only 1 which checks that there is no name clash between multiple >> _PROGRAMS and _LIBRARIES. >> >> Can you send an updated patch which includes both your code and the >> suggested test? > > > Sorry, I don't get which 3 tests you refer to, please > explain. There is one test in each patch you sent (including the patch I sent). > Currently there are two test scripts included: one checks for > the object file names to see if they are truncated (or not). Since Automake doesn't provide any garantee about object file names. I don't think we need to include such test in the test suite. > The other one checks in an abstract way if the wrong object file was > included in a binary (due to potential name clashes with my change). > > Also, do you suggest that I shall squash the 3 patch files into one? I > didn't do so as to not lose the authorship information on your test > script. Yes, that was my suggestion. In this particular case, I don't care about my authorship information. You deserve all the credits. :) Thanks. -- Mathieu Lirzin GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37
