On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:13:03PM -0500, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
> What would it take to add useful dependency information to the
> Makefile? Or does it already exist?
Some of it exists but I don't think its complete.
> When I was working the nested scopes, building was tedious at times
> because a change to funcobject.h meant that, e.g., newmodule.c needed
> to be recompiled. The Makefiles didn't capture that information, so I
> had been adding it to the individual Makefiles, e.g.
>
> newmodule.o: newmodule.c ../Include/funcobject.h
>
> (I think this worked.)
Hmm, I don't think so. Which makefile did you add this to? Are
you using the new makefile? The Makefile.pre.in file contains a
line like:
$(LIBRARY_OBJS) $(MAINOBJ): $(PYTHON_HEADERS)
but newmodule.o not in LIBRARY_OBJS. By default its not compiled
by make but with distutils. If you add newmodule to Setup then a
line like:
Modules/newmodule.o: $(PYTHON_HEADERS)
would do the trick. I think I will add a line like:
$(MODOBJS): $(PYTHON_HEADERS)
to fix the problem.
I could easily restore the mkdep target but my feeling right now
that explicitly including the header dependencies is better.
What do you think?
Neil
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4