Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could you install this patch without removing the space after
> -MF and -MT?
OK, thanks; done. I guess we can worry about the unnecessary spaces
later, as this isn't the only place where they're a problem.
>>> "PE" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
PE> Index: lib/am/depend2.am
PE> ===
BTW, this file would need a "(C) 2006".
--
Alexandre Duret-Lutz
>>> "PE" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
PE> Thanks for checking it. Here's a revised patch that addresses the
PE> nits you mentioned. Is it OK to install this? (Sorry, I don't recall
PE> the situation for Automake.)
I like the use of two separate commands in rules.
Cou
Hello Alexandre,
* Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:58:07PM CEST:
>
> RW> OK to apply?
>
> With a clone (or generalization, or whatever you see fit) of cxx2.test, yes.
Thanks. Applied as follows.
Cheers,
Ralf
* automake.in: Fortran 77 and Fortran should require
* Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:58:46PM CEST:
> >>> "RW" == Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> RW> OK?
> RW> * tests/ext.test: Add extensions f95, F90, F95.
>
> Of course.
Done, thanks!
Cheers,
Ralf
Hello Steven, everyone,
Steven suggested (quite) a while ago[1] to exploit AC_FC_SRCEXT in
Automake in two ways:
- add the computed flag to the compilation rule,
- infer from the macro argument that files with this extensions
should be compiled with $(FC) rather than $(F77).
I'm not yet sure ab
>>> "RW" == Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RW> OK?
RW> * tests/ext.test: Add extensions f95, F90, F95.
Of course.
--
Alexandre Duret-Lutz
Shared books are happy books. http://www.bookcrossing.com/friend/gadl
>>> "RW" == Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RW> This is the first of a series of patches all more or less related to
RW> Fortran support in Automake.
RW> I'd appreciate any kind of feedback, be that a rejection, missing bits,
RW> documentation, or tests, and will happily redo.
R
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:55:49AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
>gcc -std=gnu99 -I. -I. -I. -c base64.c
>
> to this:
>
>gcc -std=gnu99 -I. -c base64.c
>
> I'd also like to remove those unnecessary and distracting spaces, but
> that's for a later patch.
how do you plan
OK?
* tests/ext.test: Add extensions f95, F90, F95.
Index: tests/ext.test
===
RCS file: /cvs/automake/automake/tests/ext.test,v
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -r1.9 ext.test
--- tests/ext.test 14 Aug 2006 20:38:43 -
This is the first of a series of patches all more or less related to
Fortran support in Automake.
I'd appreciate any kind of feedback, be that a rejection, missing bits,
documentation, or tests, and will happily redo.
OK to apply?
Cheers,
Ralf
* automake.in: Fortran 77 and Fortran shoul
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So how about something like this instead: use [EMAIL PROTECTED]@' and expand
> it to `-I.' or `-I. -I$(srcdir)' as needed?
Yes, thanks, that looks nice. For CVS coreutils/lib in-place builds
with 'configure CFLAGS=' the patch changes this:
g
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:34:59AM +0200, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> On the other hand, I agree that `-I. -I.' is unsightly in non-VPATH builds.
>
> [...] [EMAIL PROTECTED]@' and expand it to `-I.' or `-I. -I$(srcdir)' as
> needed?
but many projects do something like:
AM_CPPFLAGS = -
Hello Alexandre,
* Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:34:59AM CEST:
>
> So how about something like this instead: use [EMAIL PROTECTED]@' and expand
> it to `-I.' or `-I. -I$(srcdir)' as needed?
To me, that looks good.
> 2006-08-30 Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
I'm leery of removing -I. in VPATH builds :
- for one thing relying on BUILT_SOURCES looks fragile because there are
other ways to ensure built headers (SUBDIRS ordering, explicit
dependencies...)
- also there is something convenient about the way VPATH builds are
done now: you can
15 matches
Mail list logo
