On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:18 AM CST, Peter Johansson wrote:
> On 1/29/13 5:48 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
>> Another plus of this new versioning scheme is that it will allow
>> different minor releases, even with the same major version, to
>> co-exist on the same system (that's because the $(APIVE
On Dec 5, 2012, at 2:29 AM PST, Alexis Praga wrote:
>> If you don't need a fully robust strategy that works for parallel make
>> and all sorts of different corner cases (particular files deleted/touched,
>> etc.), then you can likely get by with a simpler set of rules.
>
> Actually, even when I d
[bringing off-list response back to the list]
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Percifal Wulfric
> Subject: Re: Non-recursive make with Fortran object files
> Date: December 4, 2012 8:20:01 AM PST
> To: Dave Goodell
>
> First, sorry for the delay. My mails were not c
On Dec 2, 2012, at 8:43 AM CST, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 12/02/2012 12:19 PM, Alexis Praga wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am using non-recursive strategy for compiling my Fortran code. At the
>> moment, the .mod files are put in the top directory.
>> How can I tell automake to put them in the same fo
On Dec 2, 2012, at 5:19 AM CST, Alexis Praga wrote:
> I am using non-recursive strategy for compiling my Fortran code. At the
> moment, the .mod files are put in the top directory.
> How can I tell automake to put them in the same folder as the source files
> ?
> The subdir-objects option in confi
On Nov 8, 2012, at 1:19 PM CST, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 11/08/2012 07:56 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
>>
>>> autoreconf: configure.ac: not using Libtool
[…]
>>> lib/Makefile.am:31: error: Libtool library used but 'LIBTOOL' is undefined
>>> lib/Makefile.am:31: The usual way to define 'LIBTOOL' is
(I'm posting this to automake@ because I consider this a documentation issue in
automake, not necessarily a question/bug w.r.t. make itself)
Section 27.9 of the current automake manual suggests two make idioms for
correctly handling tools that produce multiple outputs when using parallel
make.
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.
&g
I'm curious what the recommended way to deal with fortran 77 header
dependencies is in automake. Assume that I've got two source files, "foo.f"
and "bar.h", that look like this (hopefully my mailer won't mangle the spacing
too badly):
foo.f:
8<
program main
implicit none
