ot
working on f90 as well.
- fabricio
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Squyres
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 3:06 PM
To: Dave Goodell
Cc: Nick Bowler ; automake@gnu.org
Subject: Re: fortran 77 header dependencies
On Jul 13, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Dave Goodell wrote:
Your correction of Jeff'
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
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<
