>>> "SK" == Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SK> SUFFIXES = .moc.cpp
SK> .h.moc.cpp:
SK> $(MOC) -o $@ $<
SK> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 03:02:28PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> I have never tried it but it is somewhat hard to imagine some versions
>> of make accepting a suffix wi
Can't wait to try this out. Thanks Stepan!
Brina
On 9/6/05, Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 02:29:26PM -0600, Brian wrote:
> > The following doesn't seem to work:
> > SUFFIXES = .moc.cpp
> > .moc.cpp:.h
> > $(MOC) -o $@ $<
>
> it's an explicit rul
Hello,
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 02:29:26PM -0600, Brian wrote:
> The following doesn't seem to work:
> SUFFIXES = .moc.cpp
> .moc.cpp:.h
> $(MOC) -o $@ $<
it's an explicit rule, which creates file ".moc.cpp" from file ".h".
You have to use this:
SUFFIXES = .moc.cpp
.h.moc.cpp:
$(M
> "Brian" == Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> If the autotools were to recognize these pattern rules, scan
Brian> the source and automatically generate portable rules for me, I
Brian> would be a very happy customer indeed :)
Sorry, I thought that was what we were talking about.
In te
> "Brian" == Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> The following doesn't seem to work:
Brian> SUFFIXES = .moc.cpp
I have never tried it but it is somewhat hard to imagine some versions
of make accepting a suffix with two '.'s in it.
Brian> The only other alternative I see is to enumerate
I hate to say it, but it is more than ugly. As a maintainer, when forced
with the choice of leaving it as it is, which were it portable would be an
elegant solution, or replacing it with hundreds of rules that I will have to
maintain, I will leave it as it is.
If the autotools were to recognize
I am trying to find a portable way to replace this rule as given in AutoQt
[1], which the autotools warn against using:
SUFFIXES = .moc.cpp
%.moc.cpp:%.h
$(MOC) -o $@ $<
The following doesn't seem to work:
SUFFIXES = .moc.cpp
.moc.cpp:.h
$(MOC) -o $@ $<
The only other alter
