Re: [PATCH 0/8] Qt's Meta Object Compiler (MOC) integration

[RISKÓ Gergely]

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 08:41:47 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:

> However, not all platforms have pkg-config.  I didn't have it on my
> MinGW install, for example.  And I didn't really want to install it
> there either.

Good point, I always thought that the point and goal behind pkg-config
is to make it available everywhere.  Even on Windows, if this is not the
case then I do not see the point at all, we are using automake+autoconf
because we want portability...

>> foo.h -> moc_foo.cpp
>> bar.cpp -> bar.moc and #include <bar.moc> at the end of bar.cpp
>
> So I gather the latter is done only if bar.cpp contains a class
> declaration that is not supposed for other files, but still uses
> the QT object model?

Yes, exactly.  For example in unit test code some people do this a lot
(while creating a stub implementation of something).

> Hmm; this sounds like we really should get moc authors to output
> dependency rules, preferably as a side effect.  Ideally it'd support
> the -MT -MD -MP -MF flags, with gcc's semantics ... ;-)
> Or plain -M, that would be a suitable minimal basis.

Yes, you are right, that is the clean solution.  So probably the best
would be if I will have a look on the sources and see how hard is to
make a patch like that.  I'm not a master on this however, and I don't
know the current situation about gcc.  The automake info page writes
something about recording all of the dependencies that were tried not
only successful opens.  Is this still the preferred way?  And is this
the current implementation of gcc?  This sould be the implementation for
new code?

> I'd like to defer answering this question until I've at least
> understood the functionality your patches offer.

Okay, fair enough.

Making your and others life easier during the evaluation I have built
the texinfo htmls and put them up here:
http://www.gergely.risko.hu/automake.html/Qt-Support.html

Gergely