On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 01:19:38AM -0400, al davis wrote: > I still like this approach. It's modular. You have a choice of > how you want to do the configuration. Looking at Make1, it > seemingly adds no complexity compared to a plain Makefile.
well. what you did is pretty close to automake. except that it's non-standard. and autotools has a number of features that i consider useful. (i don't know much about cmake.) > My wish ... Can we keep this modularity and use autotools or > cmake to generate that Make2? and use the autotools or cmake > provided boilerplate part to replace the woefully incomplete > Make3? variables like CCC (CXX in GNU world), CXXFLAGS etc are set and can be overriden during configure. what's the use of spelling them out seperately in various Make2.* files? please give an example. > and keep the ability to edit and go without recompiling > on Make1? depends on what you edit (?). the dependency tree for the build system is created by autotools. compilation dependencies are written out by $(CXX). these are intended to be minimal. if they are not, its possibly a bug. > There are several steps. > > 1.-5. [..] this is what a build system does. as it seems, the static/old build system fails on 5. (or did i do something wrong?) > Cross compiling ... You really need to build the native version > and use it to cross-compile. The critical part is modelgen, > which needs libgnucap. variables set in makefiles can be overriden at command line. if you have modelgen installed, just type make MODELGEN=/path/to/some/other/modelgen (*) instead of make > It may be reasonable to require that to cross compile you need > to have a native version installed, but then which modelgen do > you get? the way to go is "use configure". two options come to mind - a cross compile option (e.g. --with-cross) look out for modelgen within $PATH, check whether the version is correct, complain otherwise - select modelgen manually, --with-modelgen=/this/or/that/modelgen functionally equivalent to (*), allows to shoot yourself in the foot. anyway, since (*) is already there, i'd rather not implement this in a more sophisticated manner. anything i overlooked? thanks felix _______________________________________________ Gnucap-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucap-devel
