On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 04:49:42PM +0200, Auclair Vincent wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Landry Breuil <lan...@rhaalovely.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:13:46PM +0200, Auclair Vincent wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Landry Breuil <lan...@rhaalovely.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> > do-configure:
> >> > �...@true
> >> > oh my.. CONFIGURE_STYLE is here for something, set it to an empty value
> >> > and it will just work :)
> >> > - COMMENT shouldn't start by a capital article, remove it
> >> > - why installing the static lib ? is it needed by the binary ?
> >> > - the DISTNAME/DISTFILES dance is a bit wrong, NAME is useless here as
> >> > used only once. Instead, we usually set DISTNAME to the name of the
> >> > zip/tarball (minus EXTRACT_SUFX) and set the real PKGNAME by hand (ie
> >> > codeworkers-${V}.
> >>
> >> Thought I had sent this on Friday. Anyways here is the updated version.
> >>
> >> I corrected the issues you mentioned.
> >>
> >> You can generate code with codeworker, the generated code needs the
> >> static library.
> >> There aren't any dynamic library shipped yet.
> >> The static library is also used when you want to use codeworker in a
> >> c++ program.
> >
> > Strip the 'a' from COMMENT, they're useless..
> > It doesn't respect CXXFLAGS (ie try $CFLAGS=-DFOO CXXFLAGS=-DBAR
> > make). it will turn on -Wall which will show tons of interesting
> > warnings.. MAKE_FLAGS is not ok, you add $(INCDIRS) as bindly done in the
> > Makefile but it is not set at this point (and it's useless). CC/CXX should
> > be honored too, as it should be c++ and not g++ as gmakes uses CXX
> > for the objects that don't have an explicit target.
> >
> > Atm, i have
> > MAKE_FLAGS = CXXFLAGS='${CXXFLAGS}' LFLAGS='-lm' CC='$CXX}' CXX='${CXX}'
> > which correctly uses CXXFLAGS and makes a correct use of CC/CXX without
> > patching Makefile. Well, it overrides CC with CXX as it's used in the
> > Makefile when building generator.cpp/codeworker binary.. so in the end
> > the makefile shouldbe patched too so that it respects
> > CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS for the explicit codeworker target.
> >
>
> Okay, so I patched the makefile, removed the a in the comment and
> changed the MAKE_FLAGS.
> But, there are way to many warnings with -W and -Wall. I already have
> a few dozen patches which is too much. I've send some patches upstream
> already. For now, I only saw initialisation list order warnings and
> unused variables. But I haven't checked everything yet.
>
> Should I repost the tarball without the patches for the warnings or
> wait until it has been dealt upstream. (Should be fast enough)
The warnings are not really important per se, lots of ports build fine
with TONS of warnings, but at least -Wall makes sure they are shown. We
can still import codeworker with the warnings (ie only patch for
Makefile), and when upstream releases another version update to it. At
least they are aware of it and working on fixing them.
Landry
