Greg Matheson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, I wrote:
>
>> I would like MakeMaker not to write an implicit rule for making
>> object files directly from XS files on Windows98. This is preventing
>> me from smoking blead perl on Windows98.
>
>[cut]
>
>> Is it OK if it is stubbed out in MM_Win98, too?
>> Will there be anyone building on Windows98 who isn't using dmake?
>> Is nmake too dumb to use xs_c, then c_o? Probably not. Perhaps
>> it was stubbed out in MM_Win32 for the same reason.
>
>Looking at the MM_Win95.pm files
>in 5.6.2, 5.8.1, maint and blead, I see that although they are all
>named version 0.03, between 5.6.2 and 5.8.1 2 lines to prevent
>the xs_o implicit rule being written when using dmake were added.
Why do we need xs_o _ANYWERE AT ALL_?
Surely any make can cope with doing xs->c, c->o ?
>
>$ diff -u perl-5.6.2/lib/ExtUtils/MM_Win95.pm perl-5.8.1/lib/ExtUtils/MM_Win95.pm
>--- perl-5.6.2/lib/ExtUtils/MM_Win95.pm 2003-11-08 21:52:20.000000000 +0800
>+++ perl-5.8.1/lib/ExtUtils/MM_Win95.pm 2003-09-25 15:20:42.000000000 +0800
>@@ -125,6 +125,8 @@
> sub xs_o {
> my($self) = shift;
> return '' unless $self->needs_linking();
>+ # Having to choose between .xs -> .c -> .o and .xs -> .o confuses dmake.
>+ return '' if $DMAKE;
> '
> .xs$(OBJ_EXT):
> $(PERLRUN) $(XSUBPP) $(XSPROTOARG) $(XSUBPPARGS) $*.xs > $*.c
>
>These lines are still in maint, but are missing in blead. So I wonder if
>we can get them back in blead, too.
