* Baurzhan Ismagulov wrote on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 04:22:38PM CET: > This does work:
Good. > maude_SOURCES = maude/maude.processed.cpp > > EXTRA_maude_SOURCES = maude/maude.cpp > > .cpp.processed.cpp: > python $(top_srcdir)/myscript.py $< > mkdir -p `dirname [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cp $< $@ > > SUFFIXES = .cpp .processes.cpp > > However, I would really like to avoid duplicating every source file in > maude_SOURCES and EXTRA_maude_SOURCES (the necessity to write a custom > make clean and duplicated TAGS entries being other minor points). You can write maude_SOURCES = $(EXTRA_maude_SOURCES:.cpp=.processed.cpp) (or vice versa (expressing EXTRA_maude_SOURCES from maude_SOURCES), however you like). Yes you have to add stuff for cleaning. I suppose to fix TAGS you may need to rename EXTRA_maude_SOURCES to a macro name not specially recognized by automake. In that case, you have to take care of distribution of those files yourself, though. > Is adding pre-compilation hooks to automake a good idea? Or is there > any other way to do that? Not sure if any more question remain open here. > > > Hmm, a nice trick! However, the preprocessor reads .cpp files, possibly > > > updates them and another tool's input file, and writes them back as > > > .cpp. > > > > What a brain-damaged design. Can you give it options to write to a > > different file? Does it at least update the file atomically? > > I'm aware of the limitations of this approach. Do you see an alternative > for the described use case? Complain to the vendor? Cheers, Ralf
