[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions |
Date: |
Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:23:03 +0200 |
Bruno Haible wrote:
> In <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2011-05/msg00174.html> we
> found out that every AC_LIBOBJ invocation must be triggered from a module
> that contains the referred file. Otherwise bugs occur.
>
> The most straightforward and safe way to ensure this is to more the AC_LIBOBJ
> invocations to the module descriptions. Additionally, this clarifies which
> files get compiled and under which conditions.
>
> Here is a series of proposed patches to gnulib that implement this for most
> *.m4 files. It consists of
>
> - 260 changes of conditional AC_LIBOBJ invocations, and - where necessary -
> an adjustment between the AC_LIBOBJ condition and the condition listed
> in the 'Depends-on' section.
>
> This series fixes 30 bugs (marked "Respect rules for use of AC_LIBOBJ" in
> the respective ChangeLog entry).
>
> - 88 changes of unconditional AC_LIBOBJ invocations. Here I had the choice
> among just moving the AC_LIBOBJ to the configure.ac section and replacing
> it with an augmentation of lib_SOURCES. I chose the second option
> because it's more declarative and integrates better with Automake (allows
> use of Automake conditionals).
>
> This series fixes 2 bugs.
>
> Please review and comment. I'll wait for objections for a week.
>
> The patch is not complete:
> - 20 files in *.m4 still to be done. These are the more complicated cases
> (*printf, fchdir, sigpipe, nonblocking), which require more thought.
> - There are more bugs regarding uses modules in "." and in "tests", which
> will require modified idioms. By thinking through some of the bug
> scenarios, I've convinced myself that this AC_LIBOBJ patch series will
> help in developing these new idioms.
>
> But 32 fixed bugs is still an improvement.
That's an understatement ;-)
Thanks for all the work. This looks like a fine improvement.
I reviewed only the first dozen or so.
This new policy looks particularly easy to violate accidentally.
What do you think about adding a syntax-check rule to help avoid that?
- [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions, Bruno Haible, 2011/06/06
- Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions, Bruno Haible, 2011/06/15
- Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions, Jim Meyering, 2011/06/16
- Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions, Bruno Haible, 2011/06/16
- Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions, Bruno Haible, 2011/06/16
- Re: [PATCH 0/348] move AC_LIBOBJ invocations to the module descriptions, Bruno Haible, 2011/06/16
- fprintftime dependencies, Bruno Haible, 2011/06/16