On 11/16/09, Mark Galeck (CW) <mgal...@brocade.com> wrote: > >Mark, I applaud your goal of trying to get make to behave properly in > all cases. However, once you have the -I paths knocked out, does your > approach also work for -L and libraries? What about for programs that > aren't gcc? What happens when you have a Makefile that builds > libfoo.a, but you realize 'foo' is already trademarked so you change > it to 'libbar.a'? Will all those other Makefiles that still reference > libfoo.a report an error? Or will it silently succeed because libfoo.a > still exists in the filesystem, and once again leave the mess for the > next clean build? > > > > Well I don't know if you are being sarcastic, possibly, I don't get these > things, so I will assume you are not :)
No, I'm not being sarcastic. I think it is a worthwhile endeavor. > > OK, for libraries, there is nothing to do for auto-dependencies. For > libraries, the user has to make sure -L paths are specified properly, and the > libraries are listed as necessary. The developers can update the makefile as > needed, I only am trying to get started the include-file autodependency. I guess here I don't see what the difference is between libraries and headers. Surely someone could put a generic sounding "libutil.a" earlier in the library search path. Though probably less likely, you can rely on the user in one case but not the other? -Mike _______________________________________________ Help-make mailing list Help-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
