Re: missing dependencies [Re: inline.m4: use compiler, not cpp

2006-11-14 Thread Jim Meyering
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > These are apparently triggered by the use of $(LIBOBJS) in coreutils' > lib/Makefile.am. Although it is a bit uncommon to combine pieces of > gnulib and different pieces from outside gnulib in the same library, I > think gnulib-tool should support this. > >

Re: missing dependencies [Re: inline.m4: use compiler, not cpp

2006-11-13 Thread Bruno Haible
Jim Meyering wrote: > It is inaccurate and uncharitable to call that automake work > short-sighted. The problem is that development on that front seems to > have stalled. Since that part of automake is incomplete, if you don't > know the history, I can see how you would think it short-sighted. O

Re: missing dependencies [Re: inline.m4: use compiler, not cpp

2006-11-13 Thread Jim Meyering
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> It sounds like the recent trend to remove uses of AC_LIBSOURCE >> (in favor of listing source file names in each module-file Files: section) >> is the reason for at least some of my missing dependencies. > > The removal of AC_LIBSOURC

Re: missing dependencies [Re: inline.m4: use compiler, not cpp

2006-11-13 Thread Bruno Haible
Jim Meyering wrote: > It sounds like the recent trend to remove uses of AC_LIBSOURCE > (in favor of listing source file names in each module-file Files: section) > is the reason for at least some of my missing dependencies. The removal of AC_LIBSOURCE was indeed a major change - for the better (mo

Re: inline.m4: use compiler, not cpp

2006-11-11 Thread Paul Eggert
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What I should have done, of course, is: > #if HAVE_INLINE > static inline unsigned char to_uchar (char ch) { return ch; } > #else > # define to_uchar(C) ((unsigned char) (C)) > #endif No, let's not go that route! We should keep code simple, and not sprink

Re: inline.m4: use compiler, not cpp

2006-11-11 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Jim Meyering on 11/10/2006 4:14 AM: > > Without -O, gcc *does* define __NO_INLINE__, so HAVE_INLINE was not > defined. However, when compiling (with $CFLAGS containing -O), there > was no external definition of any function like xnmalloc

Re: missing dependencies [Re: inline.m4: use compiler, not cpp

2006-11-10 Thread Bruno Haible
Jim Meyering wrote: > >> but there > >> is a bug (haven't investigated at all yet) whereby most of the generated > >> dependencies (lib/.deps/*.Po files) are not included into the Makefile. I agree with Ralf that it's most likely tied to the issue I reported two days ago: In summary (thanks Ralf f

missing dependencies [Re: inline.m4: use compiler, not cpp

2006-11-10 Thread Jim Meyering
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Jim, > > * Jim Meyering wrote on Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 03:53:42PM CET: >> >> I did not run "make clean", but did ensure that config.h was updated. >> That alone should have caused all "old" .o files to be rebuilt, but there >> is a bug (haven't inv

Re: inline.m4: use compiler, not cpp

2006-11-10 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hello Jim, * Jim Meyering wrote on Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 03:53:42PM CET: > > I did not run "make clean", but did ensure that config.h was updated. > That alone should have caused all "old" .o files to be rebuilt, but there > is a bug (haven't investigated at all yet) whereby most of the generated

Re: inline.m4: use compiler, not cpp

2006-11-10 Thread Jim Meyering
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> 2006-11-10 Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> * m4/inline.m4 (gl_INLINE): Check with the compiler, not cpp, >> so that relevant options in CFLAGS (like -O, -fno-inline) are >> taken into account. > > Thanks again