[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: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: Testing a new compiler with Automake "simple tests"
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:49:03 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-04-22)

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 04:39:29PM CEST:
> On Wednesday 18 August 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > I suppose automake could be enhanced to also define $(OBJECTS) as
> > the set of all objects.
> What about libtool objects?  Should we care about them?  I'm writing a
> couple of (xfailing) testcases to check a prospective patch introducing
> $(OBJECTS) (BTW, is such a general name enough namespace-safe? I hardly
> think so...), and I don't know what to do for libtool objects.

At this point I'm not sure if it's safe or worthwhile to add either of
them.  This is a pretty special case here, and we don't really have much
use for this otherwise, do we?

Generally, I think the idea a couple of years ago was to move away from
the all-collecting variables such as $(SOURCES), $(PROGRAMS) etc.
Haven't dug history to find out for sure why, though.


reply via email to

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