[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Testing a new compiler with Automake "simple tests"

From: Stefano Lattarini
Subject: Re: Testing a new compiler with Automake "simple tests"
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 23:03:40 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; )

At Tuesday 17 August 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:37:22PM CEST:
> > At this point I can think only of two ways out:
> I'd go with the previous solution or use the *_OBJECTS variables.
> It's not likely that they change.
But this would involve a lot of repetion, wouldn't it?  For example, 
instead of:

  TESTS = t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6
  $(TESTS:address@hidden@): my-compiler

one has to write e.g.:

  TESTS = t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6
  $(t1_OBJECTS) $(t2_OBJECTS) $(t3_OBJECTS) $(t4_OBJECTS) \
  $(t5_OBJECTS) $(t6_OBJECTS): my-compiler

And this just becomes worse and worse as the number of tests 

But, thinking about it, my "solution" of dummy header inclusion would
involve an equal amount of repetition, while being much more hackish.
So your solution still seems the best available...

> > As an aside: Ralf, do you think this variables are stable enough
> > to be documented?  If yes, do you think doing so would be
> > worthwhile?
> They are fairly stable, but the conditionals logic does weird
> things which I'm not sure would never need changing, so I'd prefer
> not documenting them at this point.
Ok, agreed.


reply via email to

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