On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 12:01:43PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> What about asking on the automake list whether there is some provision
> to do what we want to do?
>
> And what is the main problem in this rule? The fact that append _moc
> to the name? Do we really need to do that?
No. If you have such a rule:
%.h: %.ui
$(UIC) $(UICFLAGS) $< -o $@
it can be easily replaced (and that works in every make) with:
.SUFFIXES: .h .ui
.ui.h:
$(UIC) $(UICFLAGS) $< -o $@
But the rule like this
%_moc.C: $(srcdir)/../%.h
$(MOC) -o $@ $<
cannot. Not because of _moc.C. You can put _moc.C in the SUFFIXES
rule. The problem is the path in front of .h that can't go in the
SUFFIXES rule ($(srcdir)/../).
Even worse is the third case we have there:
%.C: %.h %.ui
$(UIC) $(UICFLAGS) -impl $^ -o $@
This is basically, telling that you make X.C file using X.h file, but
they also depend on X.ui. You can't do that with suffix rules.
.h.C: X.ui
is a wrong syntax. Plus, X has to be different every time.
BSD make saves the day with the .for loop.
Is there something like that in SysV make.
I don't really remember. Last time I used SysV make was back in 1995.
:-)
--
Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.cs.wm.edu/~zvezdan/
