Re: The %.o: %.cc rule
Clark == Clark Rawlins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I never saw an answer to this. Clark I got automake and autoconf out of cvs and did Clark [ ... ] Clark on both projects autoconf first then automake Clark and now I get some errors when I run aclocal and automake. Clark %aclocal Clark aclocal: configure.in: 10: macro `AM_PROG_LIBTOOL' not found in library Install libtool with the same --prefix before running aclocal. Sucks, I know. Tom
Re: The %.o: %.cc rule
Tom, Thanks for the guidance so far. I got automake and autoconf out of cvs and did ./configure --prefix=$HOME make test install on both projects autoconf first then automake and now I get some errors when I run aclocal and automake. %aclocal aclocal: configure.in: 10: macro `AM_PROG_LIBTOOL' not found in library %automake --add-missing /home/clark/share/automake/am/depend2.am: AMDEP does not appear in AM_CONDITIONAL ... /home/clark/share/automake/am/lang-compile.am: AMDEP does not appear in AM_CONDITIONAL Which configuration files would be usefull? On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 10:29:58PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: Hair == Raja R Harinath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Clark test_SOURCES = d1/s1.cc d2/s2.cc Hair Try using Hair AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = subdir-objects subdir-objects will cause Makefile to build d1/s1.o and d2/s2.o. Without it, the above test_SOURCES will still work but the .o files will end up in `.'. Hair I think that does what you want (you have to use the in-CVS Hair version of automake). He can use 1.4f, too. That is the most recent prerelease. Tom PGP signature
Re: The %.o: %.cc rule
Tom Tromey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hair == Raja R Harinath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Clark test_SOURCES = d1/s1.cc d2/s2.cc Hair Try using Hair AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = subdir-objects subdir-objects will cause Makefile to build d1/s1.o and d2/s2.o. Without it, the above test_SOURCES will still work but the .o files will end up in `.'. Yep. I forgot to include the actual context of the original question. Clark I am attempting to modify automake to support paths and want Clark the output files to end up in the same directory structure as Clark the original files. That seems to suggest he wasn't aware of 'subdir-objects'. - Hari -- Raja R Harinath -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] When all else fails, read the instructions. -- Cahn's Axiom Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L Ash
Re: The %.o: %.cc rule
Clark == Clark Rawlins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Clark Is there any kind of concensus on what would be the 'correct' Clark way to do this in automake? Is there a consensus that automake Clark should continue to support these old compilers? Yes, automake should support these old compilers. That is, until we find that they don't exist any more. That day could even be now. Anyway, automake already supports this via the `compile' script. Here is a comment from the script: # Wrapper for compilers which do not understand `-c -o'. This is the current cvs automake. Clark I am attempting to modify automake to support paths and want Clark the output files to end up in the same directory structure as Clark the original files. What do you mean by this? My guess is that the current automake already does what you want. Tom
Re: The %.o: %.cc rule
Hair == Raja R Harinath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Clark test_SOURCES = d1/s1.cc d2/s2.cc Hair Try using Hair AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = subdir-objects subdir-objects will cause Makefile to build d1/s1.o and d2/s2.o. Without it, the above test_SOURCES will still work but the .o files will end up in `.'. Hair I think that does what you want (you have to use the in-CVS Hair version of automake). He can use 1.4f, too. That is the most recent prerelease. Tom
The %.o: %.cc rule
Besides the reason that it's not nessasary are there any reasons why the automake inference rules for C and C++ don't use -o ? I seem to remember that some compilers don't accept -o is this correct? If so what is the typical way of dealing with the lack of -o when you want it? PGP signature
