[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [lmi] Can we rename lmi.rc or lmi.cpp?

From: Greg Chicares
Subject: Re: [lmi] Can we rename lmi.rc or lmi.cpp?
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:00:21 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10

On 2011-06-23 10:57Z, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:51:48 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
> GC> Please take a look at 'Makefile.am', which needs more work for two
> GC> reasons. First, my old workaround:
> GC>   foo.cpp --> foo.o
> GC>   foo.rc  --> foo.rc.o [with '.rc' inserted in destination name]
> GC> was distasteful,
>  I wouldn't say this, it seemed like a natural solution to me.

Oh. Long ago, I did this:
  %.rc.o: %.rc
in a makefile (for make, not automake). IIRC, it permitted me to have both
'foo.rc' and 'foo.cpp', and get distinct '.o' files; but that's less natural
than using distinct stems like 'foo_msw_res.rc' and 'foo.cpp'. (But a very
long time ago I was using some IDE thing that wanted identical stems.)
Then I saw this in 'Makefile.am':
and thought it was similar--but it's really an old-fashioned suffix rule,
which is natural for automake.

>  I can recheck that Makefile.am actually works in the trunk (so far I only
> tested it on our local branch of LMI) and either commit these changes
> directly to svn or post a tested patch here.

When you commit your changes to the lmi trunk, please see whether anything
needs to be done to the skeleton trunk (updated 20110623T2034Z) as well so
that my really cool heavy-metal ïcön still works.

reply via email to

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