Hi Alex,
On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 09:59:41AM +0100, Alex Hornby wrote:
> I agree that its nicer to put both stubs into a the library, but
> that's not how our project does it :)
Alrighty. :-)
> If no-one was ever going to split the client and server stubs there
> would be no need to generate the
Ossama Othman writes:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 07:01:52PM +0100, Alex Hornby wrote:
> > Apart from the obvious difficultly of multi ORB setup etc, to keep
> > clients small it is often desirable to put the IDL client stubs in a
> > library, keeping the server stubs in the serv
On May 31, 2000, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Alex" == Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Alex> Is there already an expand_make_variable() type function?
>
> Yes. You can use variable_value_as_list in automake to do this. But
> really you'll want to have direct suppo
Hi Alex,
On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 07:01:52PM +0100, Alex Hornby wrote:
> Apart from the obvious difficultly of multi ORB setup etc, to keep
> clients small it is often desirable to put the IDL client stubs in a
> library, keeping the server stubs in the server executable.
Why wouldn't you put the
Tom Tromey writes:
> > "Alex" == Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Alex> Is there already an expand_make_variable() type function?
>
> Yes. You can use variable_value_as_list in automake to do this. But
> really you'll want to have direct support for IDL in automake, so tha
> "Alex" == Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alex> Is there already an expand_make_variable() type function?
Yes. You can use variable_value_as_list in automake to do this. But
really you'll want to have direct support for IDL in automake, so that
IDL files can be listed directly in
( I've moved this to the automake list only. )
I now have my dependency files being generated in .deps using depcomp.
I've used a new filename .deps/$*.Pcpp to hold these.
The remaining problem is to get automake to generate include's for
them and list them in DEP_FILES. I suspect this will re
Tom Tromey wrote:
> "Alex" == Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alex> As IDL files use standard C preprocessor syntax for dependent
Alex> inclusion, is it not possible to wrap the idl compile in
Alex> depcomp?
Interesting idea. I thought different IDL compilers generated
> "Alex" == Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alex> As IDL files use standard C preprocessor syntax for dependent
Alex> inclusion, is it not possible to wrap the idl compile in
Alex> depcomp?
Interesting idea. I thought different IDL compilers generated
different output file names, th
As IDL files use standard C preprocessor syntax for dependent
inclusion, is it not possible to wrap the idl compile in depcomp?
My IDL build rules are already structured as suffix rules, with a
small wrapper script around the IDL compiler that uses lockfile(1) to
prevent two targets (e.g. client
10 matches
Mail list logo
