On Jul 13, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Dave Goodell wrote:
> Your correction of Jeff's solution made me realize that my "version 3"
> solution is wrong. It expresses a foo-->bar.h dependency instead of
> foo.o-->bar.h dependency. Your approach is what I was looking for.
> Unfortunately this solution g
On Jul 13, 2011, at 9:43 AM CDT, Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2011-07-13 07:59 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Dave Goodell wrote:
>>> Is there a better way? I really expected version 2 to work and was
>>> surprised when it didn't.
>>
>> I've always a) assumed that Automak
(Disclaimer: I'm not familiar with Automake's Fortran support. The
following is based on the assumption that Fortran compilers work
in a similar manner to C compilers).
On 2011-07-13 07:59 -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Dave Goodell wrote:
> > Is there a better way? I
On Jul 13, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Nick Bowler wrote:
> So this would perhaps be better written as
>
> foo_obj = foo.$(OBJEXT) # might need to be foo.lo if using libtool.
> $(foo_obj): bar.h
You're completely correct, of course. I was typing from memory with neither
the proper amount of caffeine
On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Dave Goodell wrote:
> Is there a better way? I really expected version 2 to work and was surprised
> when it didn't.
I've always a) assumed that Automake doesn't have Fortran dependency analysis,
and b) coped with it by adding explicit dependency rules myself (whi
