Your proposed change would help a great deal - thanks! Can you steer
me through the change?
At 07:33 AM 11/15/2005, you wrote:
* Ralph H. Castain wrote on Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 03:12:38PM CET:
> While I generally find the new build methodology (i.e., reducing the
> number of makefiles) has little impact on me, I have now encountered
> one problem that causes a significant difficulty. In trying to work
> on a revised data packing system for the orte part of the branch, I
> now find that I cannot compile and debug the dps *until* I have
> completely revised all the rest of the system that uses it. In other
> words, having made a change to the dps, I first have to go through
> every function that uses it and make the tree conform BEFORE I can
> even begin to debug and test the revisions in the dps itself.
Would it help if only the change not to build a convenience archive in
orte/dps would be reverted? You could then
and would only have to issue the link command for liborte.la manually
(to override rebuilding all other files that depend on dps.h). This
change has very little impact on overall autogen/build execution time.
> The problem this creates is that - unless I am absolutely correct in
> my first iteration on the changes - I find myself repeatedly going
> through the tree, modifying the API calls into the dps, getting
> everything to compile, then trying the dps, .....discovering that I
> need to make a change, going through the entire tree to modify
> everything again, trying the change,.....
Hmm. For one you are seeing the effect of what is actually a more
precise representation of the dependencies; though I agree that during
development this can hurt.
> Perhaps an option to create a local makefile would help? Not sure if
> that is possible, but it sure would ease my pain!
Hmm. May be possible with some hackery, but if above would work well
enough for you, it'd be much easier.
Thanks for the feedback by the way, I hadn't thought of this.
devel mailing list