Re: Building extension modules

[Adrián Pérez <copylight@...>]

El 12/12/2004, a las 22:22, Asko Kauppi escribió:

> Hmm.. I'm still not (very) convinced that this is a vital thing, but.. 
> have you considered Hamster for the build-modules-from-scratch thing?

Maybe off-topic: would it be difficult add dependency-tracking to 
Hamster? (I haven't checked Hamster code myself). i.e: if I touch 
"foo.c", only "foo.o" (and other targets that might depend on them) 
should be re-created. A quasi-portable way of doing that check is using 
"test":

# Shell script snippet (note: "-nt" == "newer than")
if test foo.c -nt foo.o
then
  gcc -c -o foo.o foo.c
fi

The MacOS X man page for "test" says that its implementation is 
POSIX-compliant (the same goes for OpenBSD and Linux).

Maybe newer-than-checks might be done only when the "test" utility is 
installed, and the current behaviour of Hamster when not?

Currently that little point forces me to use GNU make, because 
dependency-tracking is vital for  build-check-fix cycles in large 
projects.

-ap

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: Mensaje firmado digitalmente