Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: February 2004:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7390) python code generators and BUILT_SOURCES
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7390) python code generators and BUILT_SOURCES

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7390) python code generators and BUILT_SOURCES
From: "Raimar Falke" <i-freeciv-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 01:54:58 -0800
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7390 >

On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 06:20:49PM -0800, Jason Dorje Short wrote:
> 
> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7390 >
> 
> Jason Dorje Short wrote:
> > <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7390 >
> > 
> > I ran across
> > 
> > http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/Sources.html#Sources
> > 
> > where it explains dependency calculations and how they affect two-stage 
> > builds.
> > 
> > It seems to me that a normal build (after a clean cvs checkout) succeeds 
> > only by chance; because the generator happens to be run first.  To 
> > formalize this perhaps a BUILT_SOURCES directive should be added.
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> Obviously a build of a clean cvs checkout will work, since the built 
> sources are included in it already.
> 
> What might fail is if you change packets.def and then recompile.  If it 
> so happens that (for instance) packets.o is compiled before 
> packets_gen.h, then the compilation may not be correct.  A second run of 
> "make" would be required to fix it.

The extra dependency:

  packets_gen.h packets_gen.c: packets.def generate_packets.py
          ./generate_packets.py

should take care of this. Or do I miss something here?

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "I was dead ... but I'm better now."
    -- Capitain Sheridan in Babylon 5




[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]