[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: When is a compller needed in testing

From: Gavin Smith
Subject: Re: When is a compller needed in testing
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:26:10 +0100

On 2 July 2015 at 18:02, Arthur Schwarz <address@hidden> wrote:
> Shows specific identification of compilers, sic. PL_LOG_COMPILER and
> PY_LOG_COMPILER. Automake seems to have knowledge of particular language
> compilers and the user can specify their use as in:
>     check_JAVA
>     check_LISP
>     check_PYTHON
> For _JAVA, _LISP, _PYTHON can I use check_ or must I separately specify a
> compiler as in ext_LOG_COMPILER and not use check_?

It seems like you're mixing up two different things. The JAVA, LISP
and PYTHON primaries are all used for processing interpreted languages
into a byte-code form. _LOG_COMPILER is for running tests. So if you
need to use bytecode-compiled Python as a test case, and if you need
to put something before the filename of the test case in the command
to run it, you need both.

> And just as a nit-noy, the document is clear to say that an AM_ prefix means
> that the variable is available to the developer and if AM_ is missing then
> the variable is available to the user. Why aren't ext_LOG_COMPILER prefixed
> with AM_ext_LOG_COMPILER as is done with AM_ext_LOG_FLAGS?

The AM_ prefix is only for user variables. ext_LOG_COMPILER are not
user variables. There are a handful of other Automake variables like

reply via email to

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