Re: extending automake

[Bob Rossi]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 09:19:58AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 06:54:08AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Bob Rossi wrote on Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 03:41:20AM CEST:
> > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 01:22:29PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > > > They generate files during build time, and modify BUILT_SOURCES...
> > > > 
> > > > In fact, think of the bison or flex extension (adding .y or .l files to 
> > > > the _SOURCES variable). That is just another use of this general 
> > > > functionality that I'm talking about. In some sense, it would be like me
> > > > adding foo.xml to the _SOURCES, but telling automake how to turn that
> > > > into a .c file. I want to run foo.py, whereas automake runs bison or
> > > > flex.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm sure that if this was implemented, a LOT of projects would use it.
> > > > So, is there something I can do to help implement it, with my little
> > > > experience writing make file rules?
> > > 
> > > Ping, whatever happened to this idea? You guys think it's stupid?
> > 
> > I don't see a way to formulate it sufficiently general so that it would
> > be useful for more than just a couple of projects.
> > 
> > bison and flex need special-cased handling in automake, how do you
> > propose foo.py would not?
> 
> I think Brian stated it perfectly,
> 
>   That brings up the next logical point, can anyone comment on the            
>                             
>   feasibility of some kind of generalized "tool X reads A and outputs Y       
>                             
>   and Z" construct to help solve the "tools generating multiple outputs"      
>                             
>   case without having to emit big ugly stamp rules in Makefile.am or          
>                             
> 
...
> I know you are smart, so you must see the pattern. How hard would it be
> to implement something like this? I don't know how automake works under
> the hood, but I think the syntax could be something like,
>   AM_TOOL_GEN([toolname],[input1,input2],[output1,output2])

Hi Ralf,

You busy or thing the idea is no good?

Thanks,
Bob Rossi