>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> Akim -- Your recent patches broke a couple of test cases.
Tom> I looked at the `subobj4' failure. I think the new code in
Tom> add_depend2 is wrong.
Tom> First, this is wrong:
Tom> . &transform ('$(' . $pfx . 'COMPILE)' => $rule,
I looked at depend2.am:
@EXT@.o:
@AMDEP@ source='@SOURCE@' object='@OBJ@' libtool=no @AMDEPBACKSLASH@
@AMDEP@ depfile='$(DEPDIR)/@BASE@.Po' tmpdepfile='$(DEPDIR)/@BASE@.TPo'
@AMDEPBACKSLASH@
@AMDEP@ $(@FPFX@DEPMODE) $(depcomp) @AMDEPBACKSLASH@
$(@PFX@COMPILE) -c -o @OBJ@ `test -f @SOURCE@ || echo '$(srcdir)/'`@SOURCE@
And I'd like to ask a question: why not using @COMPILE@ instead of
replacing $(@PFX@COMPILE)? It seems cleaner to me, and less
surprising for Sunday hackers :)
Tom> Later we see:
Tom> # Generate rule for `.o'. . 's/^\@EXT\@\.o:/' . $obj
Tom> . '.o: ' . $source . '/g;'
Tom> I think we need to quote $obj and $source here; this was handled
Tom> in the old code.
I'll handle this at the same time, when I know what kind of changes
I'm allowed to. BTW, I'd like to commit the file_contents patch first
if you OK it, as it will diminish the workload.
Tom> I didn't investigate the specflags5.test failure. Could you do
Tom> that?
I sure will. In fact, I did see those failures, but didn't realize
they were mine :(.
Tom, would like me to install something like what I did for Autoconf:
betas display a banner extracted from BUGS, stating if can be used, or
must not.
