[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: PR224

From: Robert Collins
Subject: Re: PR224
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 08:07:27 +1100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Tromey" <address@hidden>
To: "Robert Collins" <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: PR224

> >>>>> "Rob" == Robert Collins <address@hidden> writes:
> >> ... you end up with `.deps/generic/a.Po'.
> >> The PR asks for `generic/.deps/a.Po'.
> Rob> Yes. Simply put this breaks with any dependencies not in the
> Rob> current sub-tree. And that is problematic. It _also_ leads to
> Rob> multiple .Po files for a single source file, scattered around the
> Rob> build environment, which 'generic/.deps/a.Po' avoids....
> I looked at this some more.  I think the dependency file should go
> near the object file, not the source file.  This makes a difference in
> the subdir-objects case.  So the idea is that if the object is
> "sub/dir/file.o" then the dependency file will be
> "sub/dir/.deps/file.Po".  I've written a patch to do this; I'll check
> it in once the regression testing is done.  I think this ought to lift
> the `..' restriction (except for Java, for now), which is definitely
> an improvement.

Thank you!

 BTW The location was intended to be in the build tree in the PR but I
realise the PR is a little unclear.


reply via email to

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