[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Interesting automake bug
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Chris Purnell wrote:
>This is the implicit make rule again. Just as before with your header
>files. Make has an implicit rule to make an executable out of a c++
>source file as well as one to make a ".o" object file.
I really don't get it. If I have something like this:
bin_PROGRAMS = panzers
panzers_SOURCES = blast.cpp \
Why would it determine that "connection" is an application? Each of those
files does have a corresponding .hh file, but they're not even mentioned
anywhere. Why should their mere existence throw automake out in the
dark goblin woods?
>The reason you were not having this problem before you switched to
>automake was because your previous makefile did not have your header
>files or this setup file as any of the dependancies.
>Other people don't have this problem by avoiding this kind of file naming.
So .hh is illegal according to GNU standards too? A few mails ago it was
recommended to switch to .hh or .h, and I chose .hh, as Emacs recognices
those files as being C++ headers (.h will be interpreted as a C header)
I have no <foo> left, they're all <foo.hh> now. What is legal file naming
then? If it is this hard to even use automake for C++, it must be
impossible to use for other languages. :)
Real children don't go hoppity-skip unless they are on drugs.
-- Susan Sto Helit, in Hogfather (Terry Pratchett)