[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151112211024.GC18372@port70.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 22:10:24 +0100
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Support for out-of-tree build
* Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2015-11-12 15:30:48 -0500]:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 08:17:05PM +0000, Petr Hosek wrote:
> > There is one other issue with the VPATH solution which I just realized
> > while trying to make changes to the original patch: the order-only
> > dependencies don't work with VPATH because the directories already exist
> > the source directory, so we'd need to use the solution with .dirstamps.
>
> Alternatively, configure could be responsible for making the skeleton
> tree at the same time it puts a Makefile in the build dir. I don't
> know if I like this approach but it's achievable with a simple find
> command.
>
that only works if no new source directories are added after configure.
> I'm still uncertain which approach (VPATH or non-VPATH) we should
> take, so I'm trying to reason through the consequences of both.
>
depends on if we change the src/dir/arch layout and sub handling.
if we dont change anything then i think vpath with dirstamps is
the cleanest solution.
it might be worth looking at how well make handles generated rules
with foreach (instead of %.o patterns), then we can use whatever
directory layout and precedence rules.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
