How to run TESTS automatically on each source code change?

Hi, I have a test that generates a log file, which I can manually run via "make check". Is there a simple way to automate that? For the moment I just created a pragmatic target "autotest", but I think it is ugly (and too specific). Any pointers appreciated! Regards, Steffen autotest: @

Make "make check" abort on memory leaks or errors

Hi, I have s small C++ test project using autoconf, automake and CppUnit. I like to check for memory errors, starting with memory leaks. I started with "./configure CXXFLAGS=-fsanitize=address", which detects some memory errors (e.g. use-after-delete), but no memory leaks. After searching the web

Re: GSoC project idea: non-recursive automake project

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Roger Leigh wrote: > Can't automake rewrite the relative paths to be absolute? This would break things, for example when using WINE via wrapper scripts, require fixed srcdir pathes... oki, Steffen

Re: PKG_CHECK_MODULES on system without pkg-config installed?

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Roger Leigh wrote: [...] > This is not meant to sound like a troll, but: is anyone really > *really* using static linking in 2011? Yes, in my company we link almost all our own libraries statically to our own applications. (however, we use some own pkg-config) (

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Paul Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 17:28 +0100, Steffen Dettmer wrote: >> When having a source three constructed of several (sub-) >> packages, how does a Beta-Build system looks like? Could there be >> tupfiles including sub-tup-files?

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

* On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Paul Smith wrote: > * On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 19:57 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> . >> >> No idea whether they are standardized somehow or somewhere. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/help-make@gnu.org/

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:39 PM, wrote: >  ``I truly dislike the idea of not keeping configuration and build >   steps separated.'' > > Maybe I'd just like a system that *allows* me to keep configuration > and build steps clerarly distinct if I want to.  Yes, that would > be enough for me I guess.

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:36 PM, wrote: >  - I think that keeping configuration and build steps separated is >   a very good idea. Do you mean this is a good idea in the context of todays systems - or - Do you mean this is good idea in general and could be a design criteria for future build envi

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > While GNU make is a really good 'make' program, I think that 'make' in > general is a flawed concept. Could you please explain this a bit? I like the `make' concept; in some situations I even love it. One example of such a situation is to

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

2011/1/12 Stefano Lattarini : > I'm starting to think that > automake should *really* start supporting *only* GNU make (at least > from version 3.75 or so). I think also bash, gcc and most GNU tools are widely avialable. They could be built using an old fixed automake. But where should this end? I

Re: build the same source twice with different macros

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Nicolas Bock wrote: > I have some functions written in C that take a floating point argument, e.g. > > void foos (float x); > void food (double x); > > The function bodies are basically identical except of course for the > different floating point types. In order t

Re: Force a file to be compiled always

On Nov 4, 2010, Benjamin Bihler wrote: > As to the third suggestion: I use the __DATE__ and __TIME__ > macros in my code as a kind of version information. Therefore > the compilation result differs with every compilation, although > my source file does not change. Is there yet a better method to >

Re: Copy files in VPATH build

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Jason Curl wrote: >>> * On Oct 30, 2010, at 5:17 PM, Jason Curl  wrote: When building my package with "./configure" everything works well as some datafiles that are required for tests are in the correct place (my tests don't need to be installed with

Re: Automake and Texinfo: clean the info or pdf file

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > [...make distcheck' does a good job of...] > separating maintainer issues (the 'make dist' portion) from the end user > issues (the VPATH 'make check' build from a read-only srcdir portion). thanks for the detailed explanations and clarificatio

Re: Automake and Texinfo: clean the info or pdf file

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * YuGiOhJCJ Mailing-List wrote on Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 05:41:40PM CEST: >> I work on a project which use automake and include a >> documentation in Texinfo format. >> >> If I call : >> $ make >> The .info file is built. > > In the source tr

Re: call for help/crazy idea: nmake support

Hi! This is an interesting discussion. I think a key question is whether the style of working with Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) is compatible with `orthogonal component based environments'. I tend to think that both are, more or less, each others opposite. In first case, I have a on

Re: appending to DEPENDENCIES

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > adding of another variable to the default list of > foo_DEPENDENCIES. I guess. Suggestions for naming such a variable? foo_EXTRA_DEPS? oki, Steffen

Re: Built-in target to delete all generated files

Hi, why would someone want to check in derived files like configure and Makefile? Because someone might not have autotools? Why not also checking in objects and libs in case someone might not have a compiler installed? On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Trevor Harmon wrote: > For this discussion I

Re: Minimal example for perl program

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > It breaks the basic assumption that Makefile.am is basically a > makefile. I suppose that Automake could try to transform the > whitespace as part of its processing, but I'm not sure that's a > good idea. I even think it would be a bad idea

Re: Regarding the JAVA primary

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:25 PM, John Calcote wrote: [...] > Builds in the Java world generally specify source files found > within a subtree using a globbing mechanism, with optionally > specified inclusions and exclusions. Yes, they do. BTW, does anyone know why? With some sarcasm someone cou

Re: Include directive for all generated Makefile.in

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Steffen Dettmer wrote on Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:53:56AM CEST: > > [on this idention level] > > Well, can you give a specific example? I can probably see that > this might be useful, but having a convincing exam

Re: Include directive for all generated Makefile.in

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > would it be a potential possibility instead to `overwrite and > > specialize' some macro? > > With "some macro", you mean "some prepended or appended makefile.am > snippet" here, right? > > Well, my idea of the above would be that if you

Re: Include directive for all generated Makefile.in

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Xavier MARCELET wrote on Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:38:36AM CEST: > For example, we could have a couple of macros > > # AM_MAKEFILE_PREPEND([FRAGMENT], [SUBDIR-PATTERN]) > # - > # Prepend FRAGM

Re: Include directive for all generated Makefile.in

> Now, I wish to include this rule in every Makefile generated from > Makefile.in that are themselves generated from Makefile.am. ... > However, I don't want to add the "include" instruction in the Makefile.am, > in fact, I don't want to modify those files at all. > > My question is : is there any

Re: revision control info in generated files

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Jef Driesen wrote: > > On 12/04/10 15:58, Peter Johansson wrote: > > > > Jef Driesen wrote: > > > > > > On 12/04/10 14:59, Peter Johansson wrote: > > > > > > > > Also, I would try avoid distributing `version.h', but not > > > > sure how to do that from top of my he

Re: Building prog first

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010, Reuben Thomas wrote: > On 23 March 2010 10:15, Steffen Dettmer wrote: > > * On Mon, Mar 22, 2010, Reuben Thomas wrote: > > > * 2010/3/22 Russell Shaw : > > > > [on this ident level, see at the end] > > > poor support for installin

Re: Building prog first

(OT) On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:50 PM, John Calcote wrote: > Reuben, you've just hit upon one of the two most significant > problems with Javadoc and the like (including doxygen, man > pages, and info pages): sorry, I cannot leave this, because this would be an excuse for people `but we have to

Re: Building prog first

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Reuben Thomas wrote: > Not true. automake does not have explicit support for building > programs with the host compiler when cross-compiling, but I > have done this successfully in the past when I needed precisely > to build a program on the host when cross compili

Re: Building prog first

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Russell Shaw wrote: > But it is somewhat big, and i had already searched through the > online one a lot first. It is no wonder it takes noobs so long > to get productive. Yes, indeed; and even longer to get it productive correctly. I think this is no matter of t

Re: Building prog first

* On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > noinst_PROGRAMS = unimain > > unimain_SOURCES = unimain.c > > > > unidata.tab.c: unimain$(EXEEXT) /usr/share/unicode/UnicodeData.txt > > ./unimain$(EXEEXT) $< > $@ > > BTW, execution of built programs like this makes your package

Re: build .o files to specific directory using automake

> > > Usually makefile generated by automake will compile each > > > source file and output .o file in the same directory of the > > > source file. How to let automake output .o files to a > > > specific directory at the same time savely link them to my > > > program/library? > > * scleung wrote on

Re: Baked-in paths

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Reuben Thomas wrote: > I have a C program which loads some scripts at runtime. These are > stored in datadir (e.g. /usr/local/share/prog). But I also want to be > able to run the program from its build directory. We have some similar situations but failed to find

Re: distcheck and canonical_*

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:55 PM, NightStrike wrote: > When doing a make distcheck, why is for instance the --host option not > propagated to configure without explicitly setting > DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS? erm... isn't --host enabling cross-compiling? And when cross-compiling, make check always

Re: Problem of: variable `main_SOURCES' is defined but no program or library has `main' as canonical name (possible typo)

> bin_PROGRA*M*S = main ahh great, so it caught the typo :-) oki, Steffen

Re: split check target into check and test targets

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:17 PM, John Calcote wrote: > Alexander's solution is great, though. I'm going to use that one myself. For this, you'd need to change all Makefile.ams and it isn't working recursively... What is with having AC_SUBST(TESTS) in configure.in and running: $ make check

Re: How to handle data/script files in a VPATH build ?

Hi Ralf, thanks again for your helpful message. It is interesting how many mistakes (non-portable constructions) can be in such a small snipped I wrote. Thanks for spotting. On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Steffen Dettmer wrote on Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:01:34AM

Re: advice for pre-generating documentation

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote: > also I wonder: > what about builddir vs. sourcedir? how do you handle that? > does automake handle that automaticaly? make does handle it (at least GNU Make, I don't know others): If you have in Makefile.am let's say: EXTRA_DIST = s

Re: advice for pre-generating documentation

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Gaetan Nadon wrote: > generated using tools such as doxygen, asciidoc, xmlto, groff, and > ps2pdf. I can state some reasons why generated docs and included in the > tarball: This is interesting and many seem to agree here, but I think this is wrong. In my team we

Re: How to handle data/script files in a VPATH build ?

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Hmm, I have more than 7000 data files and their names are relevant :/ > (Like in java with the name of the object which matches the filename) > > It is going to be tricky to handle on such number of files ... To manage them, you now probabl

Re: How to handle data/script files in a VPATH build ?

On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 6:56 PM, wrote: [...] > data-in-build-tree: data-in-source-tree >cp $(srcdir)/data-in-source-tree data-in-build-tree We typically write something like: # file /must/ be in current dir (builddir) for proprietary tool: __heap.o: lib/__dfl_heap.o cp -f $< $@

Re: Creating a partial library

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:33 AM, John Calcote wrote: > (PIC-based static only) library is to use the "noinst" prefix. But libtool > can be used to manually install a convenience library, so you could use > libtool to do this in an install-exec-local rule in the Makefile.am file > that builds (for i

Re: Installation of third-party SUBDIRS

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:36 PM, wrote: > I use a couple of third-party libraries in my software. I use SUBDIRS > variable in my Makefile.am and AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS in my configure.in. How to > suppress installation of SUBDIRed projects? I just use they for static > linkage with my binary and don't n

Re: doxygen in .h files and make tags

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:39 PM, wrote: > * Steffen Dettmer wrote on Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 02:10:16PM CET: > > here we use doxygen to comment functions in the .h files. > > When using "make tags", tags for the definitons but not for > > the declarations are gener

Re: silent installs

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on 2010/01/30 00:34:17: > > First off, `make -s' is both POSIX and portable. > > Conceptually, `make -s' has nothing to do with the > > `silent-rules' option that recent > > Exactly, and I am asking for autotools/li

Re: silent installs

* John Calcote wrote on Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 14:22 -0700: > On 1/29/2010 10:17 AM, Steffen Dettmer wrote: > >Why do passenger train windows have curtains? > > Okay - I can't help it! I bet the engineer's windows don't have > curtains. :-) I think we have t

Re: silent installs

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > Regarding silent installs: Why do passenger trains have windows? Why do passenger train windows have curtains? SCNR :) oki, Steffen

Re: silent installs

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 01/29/2010 02:05 PM, Steffen Dettmer wrote: >> Could you please explain that? > > Example: Compling a package under linux > > configure --prefix=/usr > ... > gcc -DCONFDIR="/foo/bar" -DIRIX ...

doxygen in .h files and make tags

Hi, here we use doxygen to comment functions in the .h files. When using "make tags", tags for the definitons but not for the declarations are generated. In case of "own functions" this is great (you jump to the implemenations when analysing code) but in other cases it is not and someone may want

Re: silent installs

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Silent make rules are harmful: > - Bogus defines [] > typically do not show up as compiler warnings or errors. Could you please explain that? Here, most either use make from vim/emacs and use $EDITOR as error message parser or u

Re: Shared Libraries

* Philip Herron wrote on Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 16:22 +: > Hey > > Thanks sorry about that feel a bit stupid now, but i didn't know it > was as simple as that i though you needed pkg-config setups to get > correct linking strings. Is it really as simple as > /usr/local/lib/lib.so link against it

Re: libtool issue in a Makefile.am reference

Hi! On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > I've got a package that first builds a library and then a > binary that links to the library. The binary build references > it via: > > progname_LIBADD = ../libdirectory/libraryname.la I'm not sure if we do it correctly, but we'd

Re: How to use install-data-local conditionally with automake-1.6.3

(OT) Hi Ralf! On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:48 PM, wrote: > * Steffen Dettmer wrote on Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 02:15:57PM CET: >> Perl 5.006 required--this is only version 5.00503, stopped at -e line 1. > > I'm really not interested in bug reports against 8-year-old 1.6.3. > P

Re: How to use install-data-local conditionally with automake-1.6.3

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:20 PM, wrote: > * Steffen wrote here: > > but it does create Makefile (BTW, isn't this a bug?) > Yeah, this is a bug... Ohh this is fixed as least with 1.10: if automake aborts, the old Makefile is preserved and automake is run again on next make. So this error cannot b

Re: How to use install-data-local conditionally with automake-1.6.3

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:20 PM, wrote: > I agree that it's awkward. autoconf & automake are the best and most powerful build tools I know. It's not too easy to learn but luckily there is free support on mailinglists :-) > A simple way to avoid the warning is to do the install-data-local rule >

Why variable `FOO' not defined even if not needed? What to do instead?

Hi, in a include *.mak a file is created and added to `mydir_DATA'. The including (super-/caller) Makefile should be able to change the default of this file name. If the Makefile takes no action (except directly or indirectly including this *.mak), the defaults should be used. To ease maintenance

How to use install-data-local conditionally with automake-1.6.3

Hi, I hope I don't ask a FAQ, but I didn't find the answer in the web so I decided to ask here :) If there is a complex installation thing `foo', like extracting some archive: tar xzf $(srcdir)/$(requiredfiles) -C "$(DESTDIR)$(requiredfilesdir)"/FILES and a conditional complex `feature', someon