On Oct 20, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This looks fine to me. Any resistance?
Ok with me.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicampo
| Index: ChangeLog
| ===
| RCS file: /cvs/automake/automake/ChangeLog,v
| retrieving revision 1.891
| diff -u -r1.891 ChangeLog
| --- ChangeLog 2000/10/06 22:49:14 1.891
| +++ ChangeLog 2000/10/09 14:43:56
| @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
| +2
> "Alex" == Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alex> I've been busy on other things for a while, but I would
Alex> definitely like to get these patches in, and I am heartened by
Alex> the application of my depcomp patch :)
:)
Alex> I'll see if I can get the patsubst patch out next week
Akim Demaille writes:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> | I could split it into four or five patches (that would be
> | incrementally applied) e.g:
> |
> | 1) gcc style cpp depcomp
> | 2) patsubst style variable substitution
> | 3) suffix supplied dependencies
> | 4) improved suffix rule recognition
Hi Alex,
| I could split it into four or five patches (that would be
| incrementally applied) e.g:
|
| 1) gcc style cpp depcomp
| 2) patsubst style variable substitution
| 3) suffix supplied dependencies
| 4) improved suffix rule recognition
| 5) per target built source hooks.
|
| I would be w
On 19 Oct 2000, Raja R Harinath wrote:
> Patrick Guio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 19 Oct 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > > On Oct 19, 2000, Patrick Guio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I really have problems to get the dependencies stuff to work correctly. I
> > > > can see that some d
