[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#12142: automake tries to compile a program when 'foo' and 'foo.cxx'
bug#12142: automake tries to compile a program when 'foo' and 'foo.cxx' exist (though the former is header)
Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:20:22 +0200
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:38:08 +0200
Stefano Lattarini <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 08/05/2012 11:45 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > autoconf: 2.69
> > automake: 1.12.2
> > libtool: 2.4.2
> Also, which version of make are you using?
GNU Make 3.82
> > My library was structured like the following:
> > - src/foo (the header file),
> Why not simply using a more usual name like 'foo.h' for 'foo.hxx'?
> That would be unlikely to trigger unexpected problems in the first
> place ...
Because it is a legit name.
> > - src/foo.cxx (the code).
> > These files assemble a library, let's call it libfoo.la.
> > The problem is that every time I modify src/foo.cxx and call 'make',
> > automake
> No, automake is doing nothing at this point. It's make that does the
> building and compiling, using both the instructions given in the
> Automake-generated Makefile and its own built-in rules. And it's one
> the latter that is wreaking havoc here.
> first (correctly) compiles the library, and then mistakenly
> > tries to compile and link it into a program src/foo, either
> > effectively overwriting or removing my header file, or failing
> > early due to missing dependency file.
> I guess this doesn't happen if you run make with the
> '--no-builtin-rules' option. And in fact ...
You are right indeed. However, AFAICS it's not exactly that simple.
Automake-generated Makefile first clears the default suffix list, then
explicitly adds new suffixes. Is there a reason for that?
Just removing the second '.SUFFIXES: ...' line helps indeed. Yet it's
probably not as portable as I'd like it to be. Still, it's worth
considering if the explicit suffix list is beneficial at all.
Description: PGP signature