On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Eric Blake<e...@byu.net> wrote: >> I'm not sure whether this is something I'm doing wrong or something wrong >> with automake, autoconf or libtool. At the moment I'm leaning to autoconf + >> automake. > > compile is maintained by automake, so I've redirected your patch there. > FWIW, it looks okay to me, but Ralf will have to chime in. > >> I get a step closer but I needed to modify the compile script as well (see >> below). With both of these changes, everything (C and C++) compile fine and >> the objects go where they're supposed to. Is the kind of thing that could >> make its way upstream (maybe even for .cpp file support as well)? I'm not >> sure how to modify autoconf/configure to do what I did manually...or even >> if's the "right thing". >> >> -snip patch-
I have no context on this email, but it makes me wonder: - Are C++ compilers that don't understand -c -o common? Does this warrant AM_PROG_CXX_C_O or similar? - I think the standard extensions are .c++, .cc, .cpp and .cxx, going by what http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.html#Yacc-and-Lex recognises as `c++-like' extensions for grammar files. But I'm just the peanut gallery. Ralf is the one who needs to weigh in on this. -- Jack