ควยไง สัด
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 16:57:59 -0400
From: ty...@mit.edu
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Subject: Re: Makedepend bug?
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 02:10:31PM -0400, Mike Bland wrote:
I was wondering why 'make depend' output was saved in the Makefiles.
So I guess adding the .d files
I've been trying to figure out why my make depend differs from other
developers, and why it appears to be wrong.
For example, apps/dsa.o depends, according to makedepend, on dh.o, but
with the standard developer flags ($gcc_devteam_warn) it should not.
AFAICS, makedepend gets passed the right
Investigating... It seems to be an issue with the makedepend tool itself.
I hacked util/domd to show the makedepend command line, and got this
command for apps/:
makedepend -D OPENSSL_DOING_MAKEDEPEND -- -O -I.. -I../include
-DOPENSSL_NO_DEPRECATED -DOPENSSL_NO_EC_NISTP_64_GCC_128
Whoops, of course, I meant it generates the same output for dsa.o, and
only dsa.o.
Mike
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Mike Bland mbl...@acm.org wrote:
Investigating... It seems to be an issue with the makedepend tool itself.
I hacked util/domd to show the makedepend command line, and got
Ah! Sorry for the spam, but I think I got it. According to the
makedepend man page:
http://www.x.org/archive/current/doc/man/man1/makedepend.1.xhtml
Makedepend makes assumptions about the #includes for files appearing
later on the command line:
But when the program parses file2.c and discovers
On 1 July 2014 17:21, Mike Bland mbl...@acm.org wrote:
Ah! Sorry for the spam, but I think I got it. According to the
makedepend man page:
http://www.x.org/archive/current/doc/man/man1/makedepend.1.xhtml
Makedepend makes assumptions about the #includes for files appearing
later on the
I am 100% in support of that notion. That'd make my Makefile
restructuring experiment much more streamlined. That, and requiring
GNU make instead of supporting both GNU make and bsdmake syntax, from
the point of view of using included sub-Makefiles. (Says me talking
the FreeBSD 9.1 user. ;-)
Mike
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Ben Laurie wrote:
Aha! Well done.
I suspect there's not really any reason to support makedepend anymore
- should perhaps just switch to always using gcc/clang for
dependencies?
So now gcc/clang is required to build OpenSSL?
--
Tim Rice
So now gcc/clang is required to build OpenSSL?
No, nobody's said that. The phrase was perhaps And if openssl ships with a
default set of dependencies, which it does, there's no issue about which
compiler you use at all. Once we fix the make depend requirement.
--
Principal Security
I was wondering why 'make depend' output was saved in the Makefiles.
So I guess adding the .d files to the repository and using include
statements in the Makefiles is a reasonable possibility? (That's the
angle I'm taking with my experiment, though I hadn't thought to add
the .d's to the repo.)
I was wondering why 'make depend' output was saved in the Makefiles.
Because way back when (think like early X and xmkmf) that's the way things were
done.
So I guess adding the .d files to the repository and using include statements
in the Makefiles is a reasonable possibility? (That's the
makedepend has been broken for a while now fully support getting rid of
it entirely!
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Salz, Rich rs...@akamai.com wrote:
I was wondering why 'make depend' output was saved in the Makefiles.
Because way back when (think like early X and xmkmf) that's the
On 1 July 2014 18:34, Tim Rice t...@multitalents.net wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Ben Laurie wrote:
Aha! Well done.
I suspect there's not really any reason to support makedepend anymore
- should perhaps just switch to always using gcc/clang for
dependencies?
So now gcc/clang is required to
On 1 July 2014 19:15, Salz, Rich rs...@akamai.com wrote:
I was wondering why 'make depend' output was saved in the Makefiles.
Because way back when (think like early X and xmkmf) that's the way things
were done.
So I guess adding the .d files to the repository and using include statements
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 02:10:31PM -0400, Mike Bland wrote:
I was wondering why 'make depend' output was saved in the Makefiles.
So I guess adding the .d files to the repository and using include
statements in the Makefiles is a reasonable possibility? (That's the
angle I'm taking with my
Yeah, the portability angle is why I'm trying to move forward
carefully. That said, isn't GNU Make everywhere these days? Couldn't
we eliminate a lot of complexity by relying on its include syntax (and
other treats)? I'm still a n00b on this scene, so I don't aim to
offend anyone, but it's an
On 1 July 2014 22:09, Mike Bland mbl...@acm.org wrote:
Yeah, the portability angle is why I'm trying to move forward
carefully. That said, isn't GNU Make everywhere these days? Couldn't
we eliminate a lot of complexity by relying on its include syntax (and
other treats)? I'm still a n00b on
Really? Its much more efficient to update the .d files when you compile the
(changed) source - which more-or-less implies one per source file.
Not necessarily. One process scanning all the sources, and one file open/parse
in make is often more efficient.
I read this on the internet
18 matches
Mail list logo
