Libtool's manual disparages Automake! :-o

2004-02-24 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I am auditing the libtool texinfo manual in preparation for the next release. Currently, it says: ~ The flags `-dlopen' or `-dlpreopen' (*note Link mode::) would fit better in the PROGRAM_LDADD variable. Unfortunately, GNU automake, up to release 1

Automatic regeneration of libtool

2004-02-24 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The libtool manual currently states: ~ This macro also sets the shell variable LIBTOOL_DEPS, that you can ~ use to automatically update the libtool script if it becomes ~ out-of-date. In order to do that, add to your `configure.in': ~

Target-specific CFLAGS

2004-02-24 Thread Drummonds, Scott B
Hi, everyone, A couple of weeks back I posted my problems with getting an ancient version of Automake to build two libraries. Each was to use the same source but one should have it's objects compiled with "-DFEATURE". I attempted to use the following setup: noinst_LIBRARIES = normal.a normal-f

RE: Target-specific CFLAGS

2004-02-24 Thread Drummonds, Scott B
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > noinst_LIBRARIES = normal.a normal-feature.a > > normal_a_SOURCES = [bunch of files] > normal_feature_a_SOURCES = $(normal_a_SOURCES) > normal_feature_a_CFLAGS = -DFEATURE > ... > Where have I gone wrong? Of course, when my source files are C++ files the _CFLAGS ext

Re: Target-specific CFLAGS

2004-02-24 Thread Ben Pfaff
"Drummonds, Scott B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> noinst_LIBRARIES = normal.a normal-feature.a >> >> normal_a_SOURCES = [bunch of files] >> normal_feature_a_SOURCES = $(normal_a_SOURCES) >> normal_feature_a_CFLAGS = -DFEATURE >> > ... >> Where have I gone wrong?

RE: Target-specific CFLAGS

2004-02-24 Thread Drummonds, Scott B
I didn't. But I do now. Thanks, Scott > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Ben Pfaff > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 1:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Target-specific CFLAGS > > > "Drummonds, Scott B" <[EMAIL PROTEC

Re: Target-specific CFLAGS

2004-02-24 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > > > Of course, when my source files are C++ files the _CFLAGS extension does > > nothing. Changing this to _CPPFLAGS fixed the problem. Duh. > > You know that CPPFLAGS is for the C preprocessor and CXXFLAGS is > for the C++ compiler, right? This distinct

Re: Target-specific CFLAGS

2004-02-24 Thread Ben Pfaff
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Ben Pfaff wrote: >> > >> > Of course, when my source files are C++ files the _CFLAGS extension does >> > nothing. Changing this to _CPPFLAGS fixed the problem. Duh. >> >> You know that CPPFLAGS is for the C preprocessor and CXXFL

Re: Target-specific CFLAGS

2004-02-24 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Ben Pfaff wrote: > >> > > >> > Of course, when my source files are C++ files the _CFLAGS extension does > >> > nothing. Changing this to _CPPFLAGS fixed the problem. Duh. > >> > >> You

Extra recursive targets

2004-02-24 Thread Andreas Schwab
Is there a way to add additional recursive targets to a makefile? I tried to use RECURSIVE_TARGETS += foo-recursive but automake complains about the use of `+='. When changing that to a simple `=' the generated makefile has only foo-recursive as RECURSIVE_TARGETS. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab,