Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What we could do is ship the dependencies (.deps/*.P) in the tarball.
> That would require running an entire build before making a tarball, but it
> would be a nice service to users.
Hm. It might be handy for people not using gcc, s
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What we could do is ship the dependencies (.deps/*.P) in the tarball.
> That would require running an entire build before making a tarball, but it
> would be a nice service to users.
Hm. It might be handy for people not using gcc, since they'd hav
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just a sanity check: Does anyone use `make depend'? Does everyone know
> about the better way to track dependencies? Does every-/anyone know why
> `make depend' is worse? I just don't want to bother fixing something
> that's dead anyway...
> (help
Tom Lane writes:
> > dep depend:
> > $(CC) -MM $(CFLAGS) *.c >depend
>
> Why? Shouldn't CFLAGS include CPPFLAGS?
Nope. That's what it does now, but the implicit rule is
%.o: %.c
$(CC) -c $(CPPFLAGS) $(CFLAGS)
so if you set CFLAGS to include CPPFLAGS then you get all of it
double
> (because the preprocessor options like -I and -D would be in CPPFLAGS).
> I can install a hook to make this work specially without need to fix each
> file, but that would require GNU make 3.76 for those using `make depend'.
> I think this should not bother anyone too much, but I'm just letti
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is an opportune time to sort out the use of the make variables
> CPPFLAGS and CFLAGS, which are used interchangeably in some places.
> Unfortunately, this would mean having to fix each of the targets
> dep depend:
> $(CC) -MM $(CFLAGS) *
