Hi,
I have s small C++ test project using autoconf, automake and CppUnit.
I like to check for memory errors, starting with memory leaks.
I started with ./configure CXXFLAGS=-fsanitize=address, which
detects some memory errors (e.g. use-after-delete), but no memory
leaks.
After searching the web
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
Can't automake rewrite the relative paths to be absolute?
This would break things, for example when using WINE via wrapper
scripts, require fixed srcdir pathes...
oki,
Steffen
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
[...]
This is not meant to sound like a troll, but: is anyone really
*really* using static linking in 2011?
Yes, in my company we link almost all our own libraries
statically to our own applications. (however, we use some
* On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org wrote:
* On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 19:57 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
http://gittup.org/tup/build_system_rules_and_algorithms.pdf.
No idea whether they are standardized somehow or somewhere.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 17:28 +0100, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
When having a source three constructed of several (sub-)
packages, how does a Beta-Build system looks like? Could there be
tupfiles including sub-tup-files?
What
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:39 PM, stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote:
``I truly dislike the idea of not keeping configuration and build
steps separated.''
Maybe I'd just like a system that *allows* me to keep configuration
and build steps clerarly distinct if I want to. Yes, that would
be
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
While GNU make is a really good 'make' program, I think that 'make' in
general is a flawed concept.
Could you please explain this a bit?
I like the `make' concept; in some situations I even love it.
One
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:36 PM, stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote:
- I think that keeping configuration and build steps separated is
a very good idea.
Do you mean this is a good idea in the context of todays systems
- or -
Do you mean this is good idea in general and could be a design
2011/1/12 Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com:
I'm starting to think that
automake should *really* start supporting *only* GNU make (at least
from version 3.75 or so).
I think also bash, gcc and most GNU tools are widely avialable.
They could be built using an old fixed automake.
But
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Nicolas Bock nicolasb...@gmail.com wrote:
I have some functions written in C that take a floating point argument, e.g.
void foos (float x);
void food (double x);
The function bodies are basically identical except of course for the
different floating point
On Nov 4, 2010, Benjamin Bihler benjamin.bih...@twt-gmbh.de wrote:
As to the third suggestion: I use the __DATE__ and __TIME__
macros in my code as a kind of version information. Therefore
the compilation result differs with every compilation, although
my source file does not change. Is there
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com wrote:
[...make distcheck' does a good job of...]
separating maintainer issues (the 'make dist' portion) from the end user
issues (the VPATH 'make check' build from a read-only srcdir portion).
thanks for the detailed explanations
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de wrote:
* YuGiOhJCJ Mailing-List wrote on Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 05:41:40PM CEST:
I work on a project which use automake and include a
documentation in Texinfo format.
If I call :
$ make
The .info file is built.
In the
Hi!
This is an interesting discussion. I think a key question is
whether the style of working with Integrated Development
Environments (IDEs) is compatible with `orthogonal component
based environments'. I tend to think that both are, more or less,
each others opposite.
In first case, I have a
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de wrote:
adding of another variable to the default list of
foo_DEPENDENCIES. I guess. Suggestions for naming such a variable?
foo_EXTRA_DEPS?
oki,
Steffen
Hi,
why would someone want to check in derived files like configure
and Makefile? Because someone might not have autotools? Why not
also checking in objects and libs in case someone might not have
a compiler installed?
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Trevor Harmon tre...@vocaro.com wrote:
For
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Russ Allbery r...@stanford.edu wrote:
It breaks the basic assumption that Makefile.am is basically a
makefile. I suppose that Automake could try to transform the
whitespace as part of its processing, but I'm not sure that's a
good idea.
I even think it would
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:25 PM, John Calcote john.calc...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Builds in the Java world generally specify source files found
within a subtree using a globbing mechanism, with optionally
specified inclusions and exclusions.
Yes, they do. BTW, does anyone know why?
With some
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de wrote:
* Steffen Dettmer wrote on Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:53:56AM CEST:
[on this idention level]
Well, can you give a specific example? I can probably see that
this might be useful, but having a convincing example
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de wrote:
would it be a potential possibility instead to `overwrite and
specialize' some macro?
With some macro, you mean some prepended or appended makefile.am
snippet here, right?
Well, my idea of the above would be
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Jef Driesen jefdrie...@hotmail.com wrote:
On 12/04/10 15:58, Peter Johansson wrote:
Jef Driesen wrote:
On 12/04/10 14:59, Peter Johansson wrote:
Also, I would try avoid distributing `version.h', but not
sure how to do that from top of my
Now, I wish to include this rule in every Makefile generated from
Makefile.in that are themselves generated from Makefile.am.
...
However, I don't want to add the include instruction in the Makefile.am,
in fact, I don't want to modify those files at all.
My question is : is there any way to
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de wrote:
* Xavier MARCELET wrote on Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:38:36AM CEST:
For example, we could have a couple of macros
# AM_MAKEFILE_PREPEND([FRAGMENT], [SUBDIR-PATTERN])
# -
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010, Reuben Thomas r...@sc3d.org wrote:
On 23 March 2010 10:15, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
* On Mon, Mar 22, 2010, Reuben Thomas r...@sc3d.org wrote:
* 2010/3/22 Russell Shaw rjs...@netspace.net.au:
[on this ident level, see at the end]
poor support for installing
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Reuben Thomas r...@sc3d.org wrote:
Not true. automake does not have explicit support for building
programs with the host compiler when cross-compiling, but I
have done this successfully in the past when I needed precisely
to build a program on the host when
(OT)
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:50 PM, John Calcote john.calc...@gmail.com wrote:
Reuben, you've just hit upon one of the two most significant
problems with Javadoc and the like (including doxygen, man
pages, and info pages):
sorry, I cannot leave this, because this would be an excuse for
* On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
noinst_PROGRAMS = unimain
unimain_SOURCES = unimain.c
unidata.tab.c: unimain$(EXEEXT) /usr/share/unicode/UnicodeData.txt
./unimain$(EXEEXT) $ $@
BTW, execution of built programs like this makes your package unsuitable
Usually makefile generated by automake will compile each
source file and output .o file in the same directory of the
source file. How to let automake output .o files to a
specific directory at the same time savely link them to my
program/library?
* scleung wrote on Wed, Mar 17,
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Reuben Thomas r...@sc3d.org wrote:
I have a C program which loads some scripts at runtime. These are
stored in datadir (e.g. /usr/local/share/prog). But I also want to be
able to run the program from its build directory.
We have some similar situations but
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:17 PM, John Calcote john.calc...@gmail.com wrote:
Alexander's solution is great, though. I'm going to use that one myself.
For this, you'd need to change all Makefile.ams and it isn't working
recursively...
What is with having
AC_SUBST(TESTS)
in configure.in and
bin_PROGRA*M*S = main
ahh great, so it caught the typo :-)
oki,
Steffen
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:55 PM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
When doing a make distcheck, why is for instance the --host option not
propagated to configure without explicitly setting
DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS?
erm... isn't --host enabling cross-compiling?
And when cross-compiling,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Gaetan Nadon mems...@videotron.ca wrote:
generated using tools such as doxygen, asciidoc, xmlto, groff, and
ps2pdf. I can state some reasons why generated docs and included in the
tarball:
This is interesting and many seem to agree here, but I think this is
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Andreas Jellinghaus a...@dungeon.inka.de
wrote:
also I wonder:
what about builddir vs. sourcedir? how do you handle that?
does automake handle that automaticaly?
make does handle it (at least GNU Make, I don't know others):
If you have in Makefile.am let's
Hi Ralf,
thanks again for your helpful message. It is interesting how many
mistakes (non-portable constructions) can be in such a small
snipped I wrote. Thanks for spotting.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Steffen Dettmer wrote on Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:01:34AM CET
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 6:56 PM, ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de wrote:
[...]
data-in-build-tree: data-in-source-tree
cp $(srcdir)/data-in-source-tree data-in-build-tree
We typically write something like:
# file /must/ be in current dir (builddir) for proprietary tool:
__heap.o: lib/__dfl_heap.o
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:33 AM, John Calcote john.calc...@gmail.com wrote:
(PIC-based static only) library is to use the noinst prefix. But libtool
can be used to manually install a convenience library, so you could use
libtool to do this in an install-exec-local rule in the Makefile.am file
* John Calcote wrote on Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 14:22 -0700:
On 1/29/2010 10:17 AM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
Why do passenger train windows have curtains?
Okay - I can't help it! I bet the engineer's windows don't have
curtains.
:-)
I think we have to accept that there are different requirements
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
* Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de wrote on 2010/01/30 00:34:17:
First off, `make -s' is both POSIX and portable.
Conceptually, `make -s' has nothing to do with the
`silent-rules' option that recent
Exactly, and I am asking
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:39 PM, ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de wrote:
* Steffen Dettmer wrote on Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 02:10:16PM CET:
here we use doxygen to comment functions in the .h files.
When using make tags, tags for the definitons but not for
the declarations are generated. In case of own
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:36 PM, matwey.korni...@gmail.com wrote:
I use a couple of third-party libraries in my software. I use SUBDIRS
variable in my Makefile.am and AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS in my configure.in. How to
suppress installation of SUBDIRed projects? I just use they for static
linkage with
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
Silent make rules are harmful:
- Bogus defines []
typically do not show up as compiler warnings or errors.
Could you please explain that?
Here, most either use make from vim/emacs and use $EDITOR as error
Hi,
here we use doxygen to comment functions in the .h files. When using
make tags, tags for the definitons but not for the declarations are
generated. In case of own functions this is great (you jump to the
implemenations when analysing code) but in other cases it is not and
someone may want to
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 01/29/2010 02:05 PM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
Could you please explain that?
Example: Compling a package under linux
configure --prefix=/usr
...
gcc -DCONFDIR=/foo/bar -DIRIX ...
Using silent make rules you
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
Regarding silent installs: Why do passenger trains have windows?
Why do passenger train windows have curtains?
SCNR :)
oki,
Steffen
* Philip Herron wrote on Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 16:22 +:
Hey
Thanks sorry about that feel a bit stupid now, but i didn't know it
was as simple as that i though you needed pkg-config setups to get
correct linking strings. Is it really as simple as
/usr/local/lib/libbla.so link against it
Hi!
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy m...@cloudmark.com wrote:
I've got a package that first builds a library and then a
binary that links to the library. The binary build references
it via:
progname_LIBADD = ../libdirectory/libraryname.la
I'm not sure if we do it
(OT)
Hi Ralf!
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:48 PM, ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de wrote:
* Steffen Dettmer wrote on Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 02:15:57PM CET:
Perl 5.006 required--this is only version 5.00503, stopped at -e line 1.
I'm really not interested in bug reports against 8-year-old 1.6.3.
Perl 5.6
Hi,
in a include *.mak a file is created and added to `mydir_DATA'.
The including (super-/caller) Makefile should be able to change
the default of this file name. If the Makefile takes no action
(except directly or indirectly including this *.mak), the
defaults should be used.
To ease
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:20 PM, ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de wrote:
I agree that it's awkward.
autoconf automake are the best and most powerful build tools I know.
It's not too easy to learn but luckily there is free support on
mailinglists :-)
A simple way to avoid the warning is to do the
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:20 PM, ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de wrote:
* Steffen wrote here:
but it does create Makefile (BTW, isn't this a bug?)
Yeah, this is a bug...
Ohh this is fixed as least with 1.10: if automake aborts, the old
Makefile is preserved and automake is run again on next make. So
Hi,
I hope I don't ask a FAQ, but I didn't find the answer in the web
so I decided to ask here :)
If there is a complex installation thing `foo', like extracting
some archive:
tar xzf $(srcdir)/$(requiredfiles) -C $(DESTDIR)$(requiredfilesdir)/FILES
and a conditional complex `feature', someone
52 matches
Mail list logo
