From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@elta.co.il>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Generate makefile dependencies
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040308172924.GA20940@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <404C9E34.4010809@gnu.org>
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:24:20AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >>Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:35:34 -0500
> >>>From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> >>>
> >>>The attached, er, hack, modifies configure.in so that all the Makefile
> >>>dependencies are generated during configure time:
> >>>
> >>> defs_h = ...
> >>> foo.o: foo.c $(defs_h)
> >>>
> >>>It exploits the fact that GDB's code base is very consistent in its use
> >>>of "foo.h" vs <foo.h> -- the former is assumed to be local, the latter
> >>>in a system library.
> >
> >
> >Won't it be better to use "gcc -MM" when we compile with GCC?
>
> It would, except we can't assume GCC :-(. Better to always use the sed
> script as that way we'll know it always (hopefully :-) works.
>
> It needs comments (and a doco update).
So what about using the output of gcc -MM (or one of the other -M
options?) to generate dependencies in the source directory, like BFD
does?
BTW, your comment about running automake to update deps in BFD is
actually incorrect. You run 'make dep-am', which IIRC seds Makefile.am
and maye regenerates Makefile.in; the dependencies aren't managed by
automake. Recent versions of automake do have top-notch dependency
support though.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@elta.co.il>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Generate makefile dependencies
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:29:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040308172924.GA20940@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
Message-ID: <20040308172900.X_K0q4iKZR9Sdn_U40WmWYyIkj5AsA-hYNmJWb5Ip2I@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <404C9E34.4010809@gnu.org>
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:24:20AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >>Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:35:34 -0500
> >>>From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> >>>
> >>>The attached, er, hack, modifies configure.in so that all the Makefile
> >>>dependencies are generated during configure time:
> >>>
> >>> defs_h = ...
> >>> foo.o: foo.c $(defs_h)
> >>>
> >>>It exploits the fact that GDB's code base is very consistent in its use
> >>>of "foo.h" vs <foo.h> -- the former is assumed to be local, the latter
> >>>in a system library.
> >
> >
> >Won't it be better to use "gcc -MM" when we compile with GCC?
>
> It would, except we can't assume GCC :-(. Better to always use the sed
> script as that way we'll know it always (hopefully :-) works.
>
> It needs comments (and a doco update).
So what about using the output of gcc -MM (or one of the other -M
options?) to generate dependencies in the source directory, like BFD
does?
BTW, your comment about running automake to update deps in BFD is
actually incorrect. You run 'make dep-am', which IIRC seds Makefile.am
and maye regenerates Makefile.in; the dependencies aren't managed by
automake. Recent versions of automake do have top-notch dependency
support though.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-08 17:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-08 0:36 Andrew Cagney
2004-03-08 6:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-08 16:24 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-08 17:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-03-08 17:58 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2004-03-08 17:29 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-08 17:50 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-08 18:06 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-08 18:11 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-08 18:35 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-08 23:13 ` Michael Snyder
2004-03-11 17:23 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Michael Snyder
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-08 18:16 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-08 19:07 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-08 19:26 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-08 19:16 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-03-15 18:21 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-03-15 18:53 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040308172924.GA20940@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@false.org \
--cc=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=eliz@elta.co.il \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox