Hi, all Update version: 1. Re-base with head of master 2. Add some basic support for PGXS
After replacing submake-libpgport/submake-libpgfeutils with $(stlib_pgport)/$(stlib_pgfeutils) in Makefiles of client programs, I think, may be we should add static lib dependency for PGXS. I can think two ways to do that: first, add a new PG_STLIBS variable, user need to add static libs to it; second, we generate static lib dependency automatically from PG_LIBS variable. Which one is better? Thanks 2017-11-20 17:00 GMT+08:00 高增琦 <pgf...@gmail.com>: > The attached patch use normal dependency instead of order-only dependency > for static libraries. > > 2017-11-20 12:58 GMT+08:00 高增琦 <pgf...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> 2017-11-20 2:25 GMT+08:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >> >>> =?UTF-8?B?6auY5aKe55Cm?= <pgf...@gmail.com> writes: >>> > I very much look forward to hearing everyone's views on this issue. >>> > If the solution mentioned before is ok, I will start to complete it. >>> >>> Please don't top-post, it makes the flow of the conversation very hard >>> to follow. >>> >> >> Sorry, my fault, I am so anxious. >> >> >>> > Recently, I found 'psql' is not rebuilt automatically after >>> > editing 'fe_utils/psqlscan.l'. >>> > ... >>> > It's OK for 'libpq' since 'libpq' is a dynamic library. >>> > For a static library such as 'libpgfeutils.a', should we >>> > add dependency rule in Makefile? >>> >>> Hm. I think what you're saying is that when we copied the makefile >>> patterns used for libpq.so to use for libpgport and libpgfeutils, >>> we did the wrong thing because those are static not dynamic libraries. >>> We don't have to relink psql if libpq.so gets some non-API-relevant >>> changes, but we do need to relink it if libpgport.a does, so I suppose >>> you are right. However, this doesn't seem like the right way to >>> fix it: >>> >>> > # add STLIBS as normal prerequisite >>> > psql: $(OBJS) $(STLIBS) | submake-libpq submake-libpgport >>> submake-libpgfeutils >>> > $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(OBJS) $(LDFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS_EX) $(LIBS) -o >>> $@$(X) >>> >>> Your point is that the static libraries should be treated as normal >>> dependencies not order-only ones, so building that behavior like >>> this seems pretty bizarre. >>> >>> I think what we want is something more like >>> >>> ../../src/port/libpgport.a: submake-libpgport >>> >>> ../../src/fe_utils/libpgfeutils.a: submake-libpgfeutils >>> >>> psql: $(OBJS) ../../src/port/libpgport.a >>> ../../src/fe_utils/libpgfeutils.a | submake-libpq >>> $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(OBJS) $(LDFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS_EX) $(LIBS) >>> -o $@$(X) >>> >>> where of course the library file names need to be wrapped up in macros, >>> but this is what it'd look like after macro expansion. (I'm not sure >>> this is right in detail, but my point is that we don't want order-only >>> dependencies for these libraries.) >>> >>> regards, tom lane >>> >> >> Thank you, I will try it this way. >> >> >> -- >> GaoZengqi >> pgf...@gmail.com >> zengqi...@gmail.com >> > > > > -- > GaoZengqi > pgf...@gmail.com > zengqi...@gmail.com > -- GaoZengqi pgf...@gmail.com zengqi...@gmail.com
0001-Add-build-dependency-between-client-and-static-lib.patch
Description: Binary data
