On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:38:08 +0200 Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/05/2012 11:45 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > autoconf: 2.69 > > automake: 1.12.2 > > libtool: 2.4.2 > > > Also, which version of make are you using? GNU Make 3.82 > > My library was structured like the following: > > > > - src/foo (the header file), > > > Why not simply using a more usual name like 'foo.h' for 'foo.hxx'? > That would be unlikely to trigger unexpected problems in the first > place ... Because it is a legit name. > > - src/foo.cxx (the code). > > > > These files assemble a library, let's call it libfoo.la. > > > > The problem is that every time I modify src/foo.cxx and call 'make', > > automake > > > No, automake is doing nothing at this point. It's make that does the > building and compiling, using both the instructions given in the > Automake-generated Makefile and its own built-in rules. And it's one > the latter that is wreaking havoc here. > > first (correctly) compiles the library, and then mistakenly > > tries to compile and link it into a program src/foo, either > > effectively overwriting or removing my header file, or failing > > early due to missing dependency file. > > > I guess this doesn't happen if you run make with the > '--no-builtin-rules' option. And in fact ... You are right indeed. However, AFAICS it's not exactly that simple. Automake-generated Makefile first clears the default suffix list, then explicitly adds new suffixes. Is there a reason for that? Just removing the second '.SUFFIXES: ...' line helps indeed. Yet it's probably not as portable as I'd like it to be. Still, it's worth considering if the explicit suffix list is beneficial at all. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
