On Sep 16, 2013, at 11:38 PM, Xochitl Lunde <xochitl_lu...@tripplite.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Nate Bargmann <n...@n0nb.us> wrote: > >>> * On 2013 15 Sep 13:18 -0500, Jules Colding wrote: >> >>>> So, how do I tell the top-level Makefile.am that it should traverse all >>>> sub-directories building only the libraries, and then traverse the >>>> sub-directories again building only the test applications? >> >>> Would it work to break the test programs into their own subdirectory and >>> write the Makefile.am as needed? > >> Yes, that would work. I just wanted to keep each test program together with >> the code which is tested. > >> Anyways, thanks for the advises. I'll read the paper on evil recursiveness >> and ponder what to do. > >> Thanks, >> jules > > > Is there any reason that the two libraries have to be compiled as two > separate libraries if they depend on each other? They don't depend on each other, but the test programs has come to depend on both libraries. > You can also have Make create just one library out of the files in the two > directories. You can keep the code organized in the structure, but that > doesn't mean you can't build it all together into one thing. > > Or, if you switch to shared libraries, I generally dislike shared libraries. I can see their justification for system libraries which are used all over, but not when used in just one program (or maybe 2 or 3...). > maybe you can use a linker flag if it's supported, such as '-undefined > dynamic_lookup' so that the symbols will only be resolved when the test > program runs. That only works if you are not running the tests as soon as > they are built, I am. I do some coding and then run "make check" to see if I did something stupid. Cheers, jules
