On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Pedro Ribeiro de Andrade Neto wrote: > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Prof Brian Ripley wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Pedro Ribeiro de Andrade Neto wrote: > > > > > I am developing a package with a lot of C++ code, and I have a question > > > about R CMD COMPILE. As I can see, when the package's Makefile calls > > > > > > R CMD COMPILE foo.cpp > > > > Why does your package have a Makefile? And why is it calling COMPILE and > > not SHLIB? > > My package has a Makefile because I need to compile 16 .cpp files. After > it, I call R CMD SHLIB. > > > > R verifies if foo.o exists, and if it is up to date (last modified after > > > foo.cpp's last), trying to avoid recompile foo.cpp. > > > > Not quite: COMPILE is a make facility, and it calls make with its own > > Makefiles. This does not seem appropriate to your usage. > > > > > But __all__ my files have other dependencies (at least a .h). The > > > Makefile verifies it, and calls COMPILE only when it is sure that foo.o > > > is not up to dated. The problem occours, for example, if I modify only > > > foo.h, and then compile again. R will say that foo.o is up to date, but > > > it is not true. > > > > > > Is there any way to force R CMD COMPILE?? Well, I can remove the .o file > > > before COMPILE, but I think R could do something about it... > > > > Better not to use R CMD COMPILE. R itself does not (AFAICS): it is there > > for S-PLUS compatibility. It seems only ROracle on CRAN does. > > > > Note that R CMD INSTALL is usually called on fresh sources (an unpacked > > tarball) so dependencies are not usually an issue. > > > > OK. So I have to compile them with g++ implicitly (instead of using R CMD > COMPILE), and then call R CMD SHLIB.
If you have your own makefile, why not just add a 'depend' target? ---------------------------------------------------------- SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped) ______________________________________________ R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
