On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 14:00 +0530, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray wrote: > > commit c1b00586c9296e03d2445de20a3d44c1c949979e > > Author: David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Mon Mar 19 14:01:46 2007 -0400 > > > > Conditionalize the System Z stuff correctly. We get headers installed on > > non-System Z > > platforms, but the code only compiles on that platform. > > If 'uname -m' is a better option than checking for __s390__ (as > suggested by the following patch), then why revert to using __s390__?
Because 'uname -m' ending up not working. Or I didn't know how to make it work in a Makefile.am file. > Is there any reason to install the headers on non-DASD systems also. I > recall that you were against installing them to preserve consistency. > Since the DASD specific code would not be compiled into the library, > would it not mislead the user if the headers are present? I am > curious. :-) They don't hurt anything. It's easier to take this path from my understanding. > > commit 5167881e1f44c1bd4ccf4ed15daeeaa7af75558d > > Author: David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Mon Mar 19 11:20:55 2007 -0400 > > > > Remove the COMPILE_FOR_S390 flag-setting stuff. It wasn't correct > > anyway. Take a > > kernel-style approach and check uname -m to see if we are on s390. If so, > > we build for > > zSeries. Otherwise we do not. > > I find that we have gone back to using #ifdef...#endif blocks to > conditionally compile the DASD specific files. Why I say back is > because this looks like a regression since the preferred way seems to > be to use AM_CONDITIONAL. The rationale is stated in this "Best > practices with autotools" article: > http://programming.linux.com/article.pl?sid=05/08/11/1923248&tid=22 as > follows: > > "Many projects, to avoid compiling code for specific code paths, add > the entire files in #ifdef ... #endif preprocessor conditionals. While > this usually works, it makes the code ugly and error-prone, as a > single statement out of the conditional block can be compiled where > the source file is not needed. It also misleads users sometimes, as > the source files seem to be compiled in situations where they don't > make sense." > > If 'uname -m' is a better way to do it than checking for the __s390__ > macro, then can't we have a 'uname -m' based test using Autotools > itself? I'm using the #ifdef method in 1.8.x because the AM_CONDITIONAL stuff simply was not working. If AM_CONDITIONAL is preferred, then I want to look at it more closely. What we had wasn't working at all. To me, having these lines: #if (defined (__s390__) || defined (__s390x__)) in source files is easier to deal with than automake macros and stuff in Makefile.am files. My original plan was to replace the COMPILE_FOR_S390 tests with a 'uname -m' test in the Makefile.am files where the source and headers were conditionalized out. But automake complained at me when I tried to add GNU make-specific directives to the Makefile.am file. Not having time to deal with automake, I went with the #if method. -- David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Red Hat / Westford, MA
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ parted-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
