--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
C Compilation variables present in output Makefiles unconditionally |
|
Date: |
Wed, 05 Jun 2013 12:03:15 +0200 |
[+cc bug-automake, so this will be registered in the bug tracker]
On 06/05/2013 07:16 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 06/03/2013 09:14 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> We are pleased to announce the GNU Automake 1.13.3 maintenance release.
>
> When comparing automake-1.13.2 generated Makefile.ins against
> automake-1.13.3 generated Makefile.in, in projects which are
> _not_ using "c" I am observing changes like this one below:
>
> --- a/Makefile.in
> +++ b/Makefile.in
> ...
> @@ -109,6 +109,18 @@ AM_V_at = $(address@hidden@)
> am__v_at_ = $(address@hidden@)
> am__v_at_0 = @
> am__v_at_1 =
> +COMPILE = $(CC) $(DEFS) $(DEFAULT_INCLUDES) $(INCLUDES) $(AM_CPPFLAGS) \
> + $(CPPFLAGS) $(AM_CFLAGS) $(CFLAGS)
> +AM_V_CC = $(address@hidden@)
> +am__v_CC_ = $(address@hidden@)
> +am__v_CC_0 = @echo " CC " $@;
> +am__v_CC_1 =
> +CCLD = $(CC)
> +LINK = $(CCLD) $(AM_CFLAGS) $(CFLAGS) $(AM_LDFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@
> +AM_V_CCLD = $(address@hidden@)
> +am__v_CCLD_ = $(address@hidden@)
> +am__v_CCLD_0 = @echo " CCLD " $@;
> +am__v_CCLD_1 =
> SOURCES =
> DIST_SOURCES =
> AM_V_DVIPS = $(address@hidden@)
> ...
>
Yeah, this shouldn't happen. Not a serious regression thankfully,
but still unpleasant.
> So far, I havn't had sufficient time to implement a simple reproducer,
> but I am inclined to believe, automake-1.13.3 inserts c-compiler
> related vars into Makefile.ins, in cases no C-compiler is being used.
>
Thanks for the report, I'll try to look into this ASAP (might be
few days though). I already have in mind which set of changes
can be responsible for the regression (that is, those related to
the fixing of automake bug#14441).
Regards,
Stefano
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#14560: C Compilation variables present in output Makefiles unconditionally |
|
Date: |
Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:44:28 +0200 |
On 06/12/2013 04:14 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 06/12/2013 12:25 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, this is exactly what I needed, and your diagnosis seems spot-on.
>> I will soon post a couple of patches that should first expose and then
>> fix the issue.
> I gave your patches some "life-testing" - AFAICT so far, they seem to
> resolve the issue. Thanks.
>
OK, thanks for testing. I will push the patches shortly. And I'm
closing this bug report.
>> BTW, I notice your e-mail in THANKS might be outdated.
> Yes, this address is outdated for many years ;)
>
>> Should I replace it with the one you are using recently?
> Yes. I think replacing it with
> address@hidden
> would be appropriate.
>
Will do with a follow-up patch.
Best regards,
Stefano
--- End Message ---