From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17096 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2001 17:22:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact insight-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: insight-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 16980 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2001 17:21:58 -0000 To: Keith Seitz Cc: Insight Maling List Subject: Re: [RFC] Plugins: enhancements References: X-Zippy: Now I need a suntan, a tennis lesson, Annette Funicello and two dozen Day-Glo orange paper jumpsuits!! X-Attribution: Tom Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com From: Tom Tromey Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 10:15:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Keith Seitz's message of "Sun, 25 Nov 2001 11:43:30 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: <87vgfx30t5.fsf@creche.redhat.com> X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.5 X-SW-Source: 2001-q4/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: >> This syntax for `include' isn't portable. Automake has a macro to >> check for a few different include styles. (Note that you can't be >> guaranteed that there is any include directive, but such systems >> aren't worth worrying about, imnsho.) Keith> I'd love to use automake, but until I can get a clean split Keith> between gdb and Insight's configury, I don't think this is Keith> possible. So for now, I am stuck with using just Makefile.ins. Yeah. But you could use the macro from automake to get the correct `include' syntax. Another choice would be to use configure's facility to concatenate multiple files. That would keep the Makefile.in small but not rely on make-time includes. Tom From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Tromey To: Keith Seitz Cc: Insight Maling List Subject: Re: [RFC] Plugins: enhancements Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: <87vgfx30t5.fsf@creche.redhat.com> References: X-SW-Source: 2001-q4/msg00362.html Message-ID: <20011126092200.8_DkaIeW3Xq4V6b7ibTjXpIjOEL2pjwlgddDWcpnFVg@z> >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: >> This syntax for `include' isn't portable. Automake has a macro to >> check for a few different include styles. (Note that you can't be >> guaranteed that there is any include directive, but such systems >> aren't worth worrying about, imnsho.) Keith> I'd love to use automake, but until I can get a clean split Keith> between gdb and Insight's configury, I don't think this is Keith> possible. So for now, I am stuck with using just Makefile.ins. Yeah. But you could use the macro from automake to get the correct `include' syntax. Another choice would be to use configure's facility to concatenate multiple files. That would keep the Makefile.in small but not rely on make-time includes. Tom