[PD-dev] general makefile question

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Dec 2, 2010, at 3:11 PM, Bryan Jurish wrote:

> morning all,
>
> On 2010-12-02 20:18:45, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at> appears
> to have written:
>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 4:16 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>>> On 2010-12-01 23:56, Albert Graef wrote:
>>>> IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
>>>> This is only a convention, of course, but it's part of the GNU  
>>>> Coding
>>>> Standards
>>>
>>> i think the curcial part is:
>>> "If there are C compiler options that must be used for proper
>>> compilation of certain files, do not include them in CFLAGS. Users
>>> expect to be able to specify CFLAGS freely themselves."
>>>
>>> and i think this can also be extrapolated for any of the standard  
>>> flags
>>> (CPPFLAGS, CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, LDFLAGS)
>>
>> So what do you propose?
>
> Maybe I'm misreading this thread, but wasn't there something like:
>> something like 'PD_LDFLAGS="-Wl,--export-dynamic  -shared $ 
>> (LDFLAGS)"'
>> and then consequently using $(PD_LDFLAGS) in the linking stage?
>
> in IOhannes' original posting?  Use of a dedicated internal variable  
> has
> a lot of precedents (e.g. automake's use of AM_CFLAGS etc.), and  
> should
> in fact be *more* robust than the status quo...
>
>> I for one am really sick of build system
>> stuff.  What we have works quite well on many platform, but yes,  
>> its not
>> perfect.  About changes to the template Makefile, last time
> [snip]
>
> Easy does it... please step away from any sharp objects or small furry
> animals for a moment... OK, now: bugs happen.  I read this thread
> primarily as an attempt to ensure that *fewer* bugs happen in the
> future, and I think replacing non-standard uses of standard *FLAGS
> variables in any build system is a worthwhile endeavor in that  
> respect.


Sorry for the complaint, the bug in question cost me a full day of  
time re-doing really unfun stuff.  That's a full day of my free,  
unpaid time.  Code has bugs, therefore it needs testing, that's all  
I'm saying.

So I say take the template Makefile and go nuts with it, fix all the  
bugs add features, but do it in a branch, thoroughly test it, and then  
we take it from there.

.hc


>
> @IOhannes: sorry about my bogus "+=" suggestion; posted without  
> testing
> it first :-/
>
> marmosets,
> 	Bryan
>
> -- 
> Bryan Jurish                       "There is *always* one more bug."
> jurish at uni-potsdam.de       -Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Computer science is no more related to the computer than astronomy is  
related to the telescope.      -Edsger Dykstra