On Wednesday 18 August 2010, Roberto Bagnara wrote: > On 08/18/10 13:18, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > At Wednesday 18 August 2010, Roberto Bagnara wrote: > >> # This does not work: when ../../bin/compiler changes, tests are > >> # not recompiled. > >> # TESTS_OBJS = $(TESTS:=...@objext@) > > > > Typo here (and in Ralf example): should be $(TESTS:=...@objext@), > > with a dot `.' before @OBJEXT@ (this is because @OBJEXT@ do not > > contain a leading dot: it's either `o' or `obj'). > > Ah, right. > > >> # This does not work: Automake 1.11 rejects it with > >> # Makefile.am:1148: bad characters in variable name `$(TESTS' > >> #$(TESTS:=...@objext@): ../../bin/compiler > > The above is rejected even with the dot. This seems like an automake limitation... no big deal though, as there is the simple workaround:
TESTS_OBJS = $(TESTS:=...@objext@) $(TESTS_OBJS): ../../bin/compiler which is also clearer to read IMO. > > That said, you should consider Ralf's suggestion to use the > > $(*_OBJECTS) variables instead, for more correctness. In fact, > > as Ralf pointed out in a previous message: > > > > " ... this doesn't take into account that object file names are > > an internal detail of Automake. In practice, they might end > > in .obj, as Stefano already noted, which $(OBJEXT) or > > @OBJEXT@ can tell you, but also, object files may be renamed > > due to one of several reasons such as per-target flags, > > (obsolete) K&R support, and others. " > > > > So, instead of doing simply e.g.: > > TESTS = t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 > > TESTS_OBJS = $(TESTS:=...@objext@) > > $(TESTS_OBJS): ../../bin/compiler > > > > it's better to do: > > TESTS = t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 > > TESTS_OBJS = $(t1_OBJECTS) $(t2_OBJECTS) $(t3_OBJECTS) \ > > $(t4_OBJECTS) $(t5_OBJECTS) $(t6_OBJECTS) > > > > $(TESTS_OBJS): ../../bin/compiler > > > > Unfortunately, this is more error-prone, since if you add, say, > > `t7' to TESTS, but forget to add $(t7_OBJECTS) to TESTS_OBJS, > > you'll have missing dependencies... Well, you'll decide what's > > better for you. > > Hmm, it is error-prone indeed. Moreover, we have more than one > thousands tests and we could soon have two thousands of them. > Said that, I will probably use this solution. Well, you can always add a bit of indirection, and make the content of $(TESTS_OBJS) auto-generated. You can take a look at how Automake's own `tests/Makefile.am' does something similar to generate the content of the `$(parallel_tests)' variable. > For the long term, given that the problem I am facing seems rather > general (testing compilers or compiler-like tools), would you > consider the possibility to extend Automate to simplify the job? I think I definitely lack the insight and experience to get this right. Let's wait what Ralf has to say about it... apart from "Patches are always welcome", obviously ;-) Regards, Stefano
