On Mon, 2002-05-06 at 06:30, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Nowadays we could probably implement pattern rules purely in automake.
> Back in the old days we didn't have the machinery to allow this.
> Automake itself was too primitive. But now it would be more possible,
> if someone were motivated. Maybe th
Tom Tromey wrote:
>
> > "Alex" == Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Alex> I suppose automake could be enhanced so that it automatically
> Alex> knew which files are BUILT_SOURCES by looking back through the
> Alex> suffix rules. Then the small overhead of listing them twice
> Alex>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 06 May 2002 07:29, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Christoph" == <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Christoph> Yes and no. Take the example of QT's moc files. They have
> Christoph> to be generated from .h files, if the class defined in the
> Chri
> "Alex" == Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alex> Suffix rules should be portable to all makes, its pattern rules
Alex> that aren't available everywhere.
Nowadays we could probably implement pattern rules purely in automake.
Back in the old days we didn't have the machinery to allow
> "Christoph" == <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christoph> Yes and no. Take the example of QT's moc files. They have
Christoph> to be generated from .h files, if the class defined in the
Christoph> .h file does mention a Q_OBJECT macro. I would love to have
Christoph> something in my Makefiles
> "Alex" == Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alex> I suppose automake could be enhanced so that it automatically
Alex> knew which files are BUILT_SOURCES by looking back through the
Alex> suffix rules. Then the small overhead of listing them twice
Alex> would be removed.
BUILT_SOURCES
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 12:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> alex> Could you check if the automake 1.6.x docs make the same reference to
> alex> "GNU make" instead of just make when talking about suffix rules?
>
> No, they don't.
Great, so no doco patch needed :)
> So this is enough if you have a s
alex> Could you check if the automake 1.6.x docs make the same reference to
alex> "GNU make" instead of just make when talking about suffix rules?
No, they don't.
So this is enough if you have a special file type from which source files
should
be generated. But the moc problem isn't solved (co
alex> I think the recommended way is to add suffix rules to produce the built
alex> sources, not edit the Makefile.ins.
But is this really portable ? I looked at automake 1.4 info pages, and it tells
something about GNU make:
> Handling new file extensions
>
>
> I
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 10:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> It is common style to generate c/cpp source files from some meta-languages.
> Examples are lex, yacc, QT's moc, swig, and probably many other tools. AFAIK
> there is currently no way to handle such files in automake and the recommended
> w
It is common style to generate c/cpp source files from some meta-languages.
Examples are lex, yacc, QT's moc, swig, and probably many other tools. AFAIK
there is currently no way to handle such files in automake and the recommended
way is to write scripts editing Makefile.in's to add seperate r
11 matches
Mail list logo
