| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > Any way lt-foo.c could go into .libs/? Or just be erased after > foo.exe has been built? Maybe both? I see no problems with either or both...but I'd rather keep lt-foo.c around until 'make clean' (or libtool --mode=clean) time. > Also I if you don't move `foo' to `.libs/' I think you > should ensure that `libtool --mode=clean rm -f foo.exe' > erases `foo'. Good point. "libtool --mode=clean" won't currently get both of them. But automake's 'make clean' will (see below). > (Or does Cygwin's `rm' erase both at once?) No, it doesn't. > Right now Automake doesn't use `--mode=clean'. Maybe Automake > 1.8 could start doing this so we don't have to hardcode this > sort of knowledge. Yeah, I think this has come up before... However, current automake "make clean" will at least attempt to delete all four of the following, whether they exist or not: foo foo.exe .libs/foo (*) .libs/foo.exe (*) (*) by virtue of rm -rf'ing .libs So, there's really no worry about cleaning up the shell wrapper or the "real" executable -- or the binary wrapper -- with present automake. But cleaning up the lt-foo.c file is an issue. I'd prefer to move it into .libs, but NOT erase it; automake's make clean will "get it" if it's in .libs (see rm -rf, above) 'Course, transitioning to libtool --mode=clean will mess that up, unless the problems you mention are addressed... --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |