[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The %.o: rule

From: Clark Rawlins
Subject: Re: The %.o: rule
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 20:13:45 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.18i

On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 05:15:22PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Clark" == Clark Rawlins <address@hidden> writes:
> Clark> Is there any kind of consensus on what would be the 'correct'
> Clark> way to do this in automake?  Is there a consensus that automake
> Clark> should continue to support these old compilers?
> Yes, automake should support these old compilers.  That is, until we
> find that they don't exist any more.  That day could even be now.
> Anyway, automake already supports this via the `compile' script.  Here
> is a comment from the script:
>     # Wrapper for compilers which do not understand `-c -o'.

Does this mean that automake users can use -c and -o together and this
`compile' script will `do the right thing'?

> This is the current cvs automake.
> Clark> I am attempting to modify automake to support paths and want
> Clark> the output files to end up in the same directory structure as
> Clark> the original files.
> What do you mean by this?
> My guess is that the current automake already does what you want.

I want to be able to do something like:

test_SOURCES = d1/ d2/


> Tom

Attachment: pgpkYEaIwRKOi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]