--- Comment #3 from Heywood Floyd <> 2011-09-08 05:34:24 PDT 
Ah, I see.

Well, that does sound well-meaning. Hm, but, how can rdmd --makedepend claim to
know which dmd-binary I'm using in my Makefile? How does it even know I'm going
to use dmd, and not gdc, or ldc?

I suppose the tool being named "rdmd" could imply dmd is assumed, but then
again, outputting text to be used in a Makefile implies rdmd is trying to be a
part of a Makefile-work-flow. Ok, I realize I've just assumed that, maybe it
isn't (?), but if it is, then I think including "dmd.conf" and the "dmd"-binary
makes rdmd a bit presumptuous.

So, yes, I think these files should be omitted. Although I don't have the
expertise to say anything decisive about this. Is this the convention in
Makefiles? Is the g++-binary usually listed as a dependency? I have no idea. As
long as rdmd at least outputs d-files I'm happy!


In any case, here's how to just get the d-files from the --makedepend output,
and this is probably embarrassingly obvious, but for Makefile-hobbyists like me
it's good stuff : )

    D_FILES_WITH_PATHS = $(filter %.d, $(MAKEDEP_OUTPUT))

Configure issuemail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to