Re: dependency tracking for .S assembler files

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 09:58, Martin Waitz wrote:
> But perhaps you are right and we should not separate handling of .s and .S.
I strongly concur. 

*.s and *.S are different beasts.

Filesystems and systems which can not distinguish them, have lost.
But this is not an automake problem, this is design problem with those
compilers supporting *.s and *.S (e.g. gcc).

> autodep could be set for assembler files unconditionally.
Real *.s in general can not have dependencies, because the language 
(ASM) they are written in is machine and toolchain-dependent.
Any "include" statement inside of "ASM" files, therefore would either be
machine and/or toolchain dependent. Many assemblers do not support any
"include" statements.

> But perhaps you are right and we should not separate handling of .s and .S.
> autodep could be set for assembler files unconditionally.
No, this would void the meaning of *.s and *.S and would probably break
existing sources.

> I haven't yet tested if gcc would be confused by that.
It is.

> And somebody should take a look at other compilers, too.

Ralf