-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 04 February 2003 20:21, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>
> Automake 1.7.3 will have the following paragraphs in its manual.
>
[...]
May I also suggest a note to say that AM_LFLAGS should be set to -olex.yy.c
when building lexers with %option c
>>> "Aidan" == Aidan Delaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Aidan> balor@navi traditional $ make
Aidan> flex traditional.ll && mv lex.yy.c traditional.cc
Automake indeed does not support C++ scanners (i.e., flex -+), but
will compile a C scanner as C++ source when asked so.
[...]
Aidan> AFAIK
>>> "Sander" == Sander Niemeijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sander> This replacement for the _AC_AM_CONFIG_HEADER_HOOK macro (located in
Sander> m4/init.m4) fixes an incorrect naming issue of stamp-h* files when
Sander> only specific headers are recreated through config.status.
Thanks a lot!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> > Automake does not seem to differenciate between flex generated c++ files
> > and c files
>
> Not if it has to guess. Use .ll or .l++ as the extension for your lex
> file, drop the -+ and watch it work. :-)
>
> Reason behind that: automake needs to
>>> "Simon" == Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Simon> Hrm, what if an archive would be treated like a directory, i.e.
Simon> foo_jar_DATA = foo.properties
Sounds like a nice idea.
Simon> ... Hrm, that would go in the direction of generic archive target
Simon> support, and one
Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> What do people thinks about Automake's removal of core dumps?
>
> I tend to think it's a misfeature.
Only 'cuz it's implemented for the wrong target.
> For one thing, this doesn't match the documentation.
> Quizz: which of the following targets do you think
> Autom
>>> "Eric" == Eric Siegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eric> On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 02:59:00AM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
>> for a project of mine I need support for java .class files, and as I'd
>> like to do this the right way I've thought I might as well try to hack
>> automake's Java s
> What do people thinks about Automake's removal of core dumps?
>
> I tend to think it's a misfeature.
I would tend to agree, if only for the reason that there are different
conventions on how core files are named, and a core file on one system
might be a completely legitimate (data) file on
>>> "Alan" == Alan Gutierrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alan> bin_PROGRAMS = foo
Alan> foo_SOURCES = \
Alan> src/foo/foo.hpp \
Alan> src/foo/foo.cpp
Alan> automake correctly determines the foo.hpp dependency for building foo,
Alan> but doesn't feed foo.hpp to etags.
% make tags
tags=; \
>>> "Patrick" == Patrick Guio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Patrick> core files generated are called after process id with
Patrick> the syntax core.$pid
[...]
Patrick> That might be nice to remove those as well?
[...]
Thanks for the suggestion.
What do people thinks about Automake's remova
>>> "Bob" == Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bob> Simon Richter wrote:
>>
>> $(SHELL) ?
Bob> Does that mean that a SHELL=/bin/csh user will run the script with csh
Bob> and a SHELL=/bin/zsh user will run the shell with zsh?
Nope. The $(SHELL) Makefile variable is AC_SUBST'ed by
>>> "mcmahill" == mcmahill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mcmahill> I have a shell script which I want to run as part of
mcmahill> a testsuite. However when I do a 'make distcheck'
mcmahill> this script [...] ends up with execute permissions
mcmahill> turned off.
How does this happen?
Automak
Aidan,
> Automake does not seem to differenciate between flex generated c++ files and c
> files
Not if it has to guess. Use .ll or .l++ as the extension for your lex
file, drop the -+ and watch it work. :-)
Reason behind that: automake needs to know at Makefile.in generation
time which compiler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Automake does not seem to differenciate between flex generated c++ files and c
files
Here is the problem
balor@navi traditional $ make
flex -+ traditional.l++ && mv lex.yy.c traditional.c++
mv: cannot stat `lex.yy.c': No such file or directory
make:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 05:20:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have a shell script which I want to run as part of a testsuite. However
> > when I do a 'make distcheck' this script (which does not get configured or
> > anything
I assume the script is part of your distribution and only needs to have
executable permission there, right?
In order to give it these executable permissions when you build your
distribution use a
---
dist-hook:
chmod 755 your_script
---
in your top level Makefile.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
San
16 matches
Mail list logo
