Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/07/02/08:24:35
In article <199707011818 DOT LAA18708 AT adit DOT ap DOT net> you wrote:
> You wrote:
> >A straightforward way is to recompile the library with -g. However,
> >since rebuilding the library is not easy,
> Why is that? I have tried to rebuild it occasionally. When it does work
> sucessfully I compare `nm' outputs on the original and the new one and find
> the new one missing some symbols, therefore I'm always too afraid to put it
> into general use.
By chance, I'm currently trying to re-write all of the building process,
to make it possible to unpack djlsr*.zip wherever you like, and just
'cd src ; make ; make install' to get a fresh build of the library.
The new method will use most of the existing ports of GNU software,
including fileutils, textutils and bash. If I manage to get that done,
it may even build the library with a cross compiler if you want.
> Another gripe: Would it be too much trouble to use one big Makefile instead
> of that silly `rmake' stuff? It annoys me that an attempt to do the make
> tries to rebuild the entire library. I think it should just recompile the
> stuff I have changed and `ar' them into the existing library.
That rmake stuff is not quite as silly as you seem to think. It avoids
one major hassle: having to keep a central list of the source files in
all those subdirectories for the master Makefile. The rmake stuff is
slower than the 'single monster Makefile' would be, but it's easier to
maintain. With rmake, you can just add a source file, or even a new
subdirectory tree full of source files without changing the master
Makefiles at all: you just put a mini Makefile in each leaf directory,
and rmake will do the rest.
HBB
- Raw text -