[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: building faillure

From: Phil Holmes
Subject: Re: building faillure
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:56:24 +0100

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: building faillure

"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:

----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Percival" <address@hidden>
To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
Cc: "Bernardo Barros" <address@hidden>; "Devel"
<address@hidden>; "lilypond-user" <address@hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: building faillure

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:08:26AM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
$(outdir)/general-scheme.o: $(outdir)/version.hh
$(outdir)/lily-guile.o: $(outdir)/version.hh
$(outdir)/lily-version.o: $(outdir)/version.hh
Graham: git grep version.hh gives:

lily/ "version.hh"
lily/lexer.ll:#include "version.hh"
lily/ "version.hh"
lily/ "version.hh"
lily/ "version.hh"
lily/ "version.hh"
lily/ "version.hh"

I think it could make the build system more robust to make ordering
by adding lexer.ll,, and to the
target list for version.hh?

Yes please.  Add the lines, check that you can compile from
scratch, then push directly.

Now pushed as 29447b3a224f52444f0ec74225eb9e6af0591223

There is no such thing as lexer.ll.o and most of the stuff seems already
mentioned in out/*.dep.  Isn't this activism?  I think the following is
much more glaring:

Apologies. I had noticed and corrected that in the patch I intended to push, but my problems with git push meant my correction got lost. I'll get rid of the line, since lexer actually has a rule a bit higher up.

If you can find the mail trail, you'll see that this does actually correct a failing build on Fedora, owing to the missing rule for relocate.

# list parser.hh first: making parser.hh removes
OUT_DIST_FILES=$(addprefix $(outdir)/,parser.hh

We can't really have a situation like that described in the comment if
we want to have parallel compilation to work.

Either we need a _single_ rule for parser.hh and (not much
else makes sense), or one needs to juggle with -o and -d in order to
make sure that generating the header file does not stomp over the C file
and vice versa.  Since non-matching output files are a bad idea anyway,
I'd prefer a single rule.

I've no problem with that being corrected, too.

Phil Holmes

reply via email to

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