Spurred on by comments made by Andrew, I spent some time last
night overhauling the Python Makefiles. I now have a toplevel
non-recursive Makefile.in that seems to work fairly well. I'm
pretty sure it still should be portable. It doesn't use includes
or any special GNU make features. It is half the size of the old
Makefiles. The build is faster and its now easier to follow if
something goes wrong.
A question: is it possible to break the Python static library up?
For example, instead of having libpython<version>.a have
Parser/parser<version>.a, Objects/objects<version>.a, etc? There
would still only be one shared library. This would speed up
incremental builds and also help Andrew with PEP 229. I'm
thinking that the Makefile do something like this:
all: python$(EXE)
PYLIBS= Parser/parser.a Objects/objects.a ... Modules/modules.a
python$(EXE): $(PYLIBS)
$(LINKCC) -o python$(EXE) $(PYLIBS) ...
Modules/modules.a: minpython$(EXE)
./minpython$(EXE) setup.py
AFACT, the only thing affected by splitting up the static library
is Misc/Makefile.pre.in. Is this correct?
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