On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 23:45, Jie Zhang wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On Saturday, June 11, 2011 23:32:07 Jie Zhang wrote: >>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>>> > On Saturday, June 11, 2011 21:28:30 Jie Zhang wrote: >>>> >> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>>> >> > --- Makefile.am (revision 1907) >>>> >> > +++ Makefile.am (working copy) >>>> >> > @@ -55,12 +55,8 @@ libbsdl_flex_la_CFLAGS = \ >>>> >> > # - all files depend on bsdl_config.h which dynamically generated >>>> >> > # - *_flex files must be processed after their *_bison counterparts >>>> >> > # to ensure that *_bison.h is present >>>> >> > -libbsdl_flex_la-vhdl_flex.$(OBJEXT): vhdl_bison.h bsdl_config.h >>>> >> > -vhdl_bison.$(OBJEXT): bsdl_config.h >>>> >> > -libbsdl_flex_la-bsdl_flex.$(OBJEXT): bsdl_bison.h bsdl_config.h >>>> >> > -bsdl_bison.$(OBJEXT): bsdl_config.h >>>> >> > -bsdl.$(OBJEXT) : bsdl_config.h >>>> >> > -bsdl_sem.$(OBJEXT): bsdl_bison.h bsdl_config.h >>>> >> > +$(libbsdl_la_OBJECTS) $(libbsdl_flex_la_OBJECTS): \ >>>> >> > + bsdl_bison.h bsdl_config.h vhdl_bison.h >>>> >> > >>>> >> > vhdl_bison.h: vhdl_bison.c >>>> >> > bsdl_bison.h: bsdl_bison.c >>>> >> >>>> >> Will this introduce some unnecessary dependencies? >>>> > >>>> > probably, but i dont think it matters >>>> >>>> I think overriding OBJEXT is a little better. At least we will have >>>> accurate dependencies. >>> >>> that was removed because it was breaking things (and why i made the >>> previously >>> mentioned commit in the first place). it cannot be readded. >> >> I saw the log of that commit was "drop OBJEXT override from bison >> subdirs as it doesn't seem to be needed". It didn't mention it was for >> fixing some issue. Finally I found what that commit was for from the >> mailing list. > > yes, sorry about that > >> Attached is a patch which should keep the dependencies accurate >> without reintroducing the issue the user reported: "remove *.lo >> twice". The idea comes from BFD. > > i dont think this is an improvement at all. this is exactly the kind > of stuff i dont think should be anywhere in the source build files. > This is the way documented in Automake manual to deal with such situation.
> the only thing wrong with my patch is that some .o files have an > unnecessary dependency on these generated files. in practice, i dont > think this matters at all. i did this so that we wouldnt have to > maintain a list of object files (which might change names if libtool > changes behavior). > But there is nothing known wrong with my patch. The issue you are worried about is in the future. It might come, it might not. I don't think automake and libtool change a lot nowadays. So I don't think we should worry about it. Anyway we can fix it when it unfortunately happens. Jie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev _______________________________________________ UrJTAG-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/urjtag-development
