Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
My point was not entirely that the documentation was wrong. It is an
extremely useful capability to be able to define a common base set of
CPPFLAGS and then use per-target CPPFLAGS to extend these (equivalent
to +=). Otherwise the Makefile.am has to be very messy and large
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> >>> "Bob" == Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Bob> The Automake documentation claims that 'INCLUDES' is the
> Bob> equivalent of 'AM_CPPFLAGS'. However, I find that this is
> Bob> not the case at all. If AM_CPPFLAGS is used, th
>>> "Bob" == Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bob> The Automake documentation claims that 'INCLUDES' is the
Bob> equivalent of 'AM_CPPFLAGS'. However, I find that this is
Bob> not the case at all. If AM_CPPFLAGS is used, then any
Bob> per-target CPPFLAGS option completely override
The Automake documentation claims that 'INCLUDES' is the equivalent of
'AM_CPPFLAGS'. However, I find that this is not the case at all. If
AM_CPPFLAGS is used, then any per-target CPPFLAGS option completely
overrides it. However, if INCLUDES is used, then per-target CPPFLAGS
options augment the
