[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: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:29:49 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; )

On Thursday 19 August 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * 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.
Agreed.  I'll let the testcases I've written committed to a local 
branch, just in case.


reply via email to

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