On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 08:41:47 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues <ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de> writes:
> However, not all platforms have pkg-config. I didn't have it on my > MinGW install, for example. And I didn't really want to install it > there either. Good point, I always thought that the point and goal behind pkg-config is to make it available everywhere. Even on Windows, if this is not the case then I do not see the point at all, we are using automake+autoconf because we want portability... >> foo.h -> moc_foo.cpp >> bar.cpp -> bar.moc and #include <bar.moc> at the end of bar.cpp > > So I gather the latter is done only if bar.cpp contains a class > declaration that is not supposed for other files, but still uses > the QT object model? Yes, exactly. For example in unit test code some people do this a lot (while creating a stub implementation of something). > Hmm; this sounds like we really should get moc authors to output > dependency rules, preferably as a side effect. Ideally it'd support > the -MT -MD -MP -MF flags, with gcc's semantics ... ;-) > Or plain -M, that would be a suitable minimal basis. Yes, you are right, that is the clean solution. So probably the best would be if I will have a look on the sources and see how hard is to make a patch like that. I'm not a master on this however, and I don't know the current situation about gcc. The automake info page writes something about recording all of the dependencies that were tried not only successful opens. Is this still the preferred way? And is this the current implementation of gcc? This sould be the implementation for new code? > I'd like to defer answering this question until I've at least > understood the functionality your patches offer. Okay, fair enough. Making your and others life easier during the evaluation I have built the texinfo htmls and put them up here: http://www.gergely.risko.hu/automake.html/Qt-Support.html Gergely
