[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.c++

Re: Problem with recursive make.

zaimoni

9/9/2008 6:03:00 PM

On Sep 9, 10:53 am, "contactmayankj...@gmail.com"
<contactmayankj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got the below paper and found the problems with which recursive make
> have. I guess FreeBSD use recursive make. Can any one comment on it
> and please clear my doubts why we use recursive make.
>
> http://aegis.sourceforge.net/...

Sigh...development environment question. Recursive make is useful
whenever a project has a number of subprojects; it makes it possible
to work on a subproject without rebuilding the whole project until
absolutely necessary.

The two key points of that article have nothing to do with recursive
make:
* dependency information must be global.
* Subprojects should be built in an order that respects their
dependencies on each other.

Ultimately, this is a hard-to-fix problem with the GNU autotools, that
should be eliminated at the design stage when making a new makefile
generation system. The LLVM build system (used by the CLang project
as well [ http://clang... ], C++ support expected in a couple
of years) uses their GenLibDeps.pl script to force building libraries
in the correct order (both by prohibiting cyclic library dependencies,
and thinking of dependencies in library terms rather than object-file
terms).
8 Answers

contactmayankjain@gmail.com

9/10/2008 1:08:00 AM

0

On Sep 9, 11:03 pm, zaim...@zaimoni.com wrote:
> On Sep 9, 10:53 am, "contactmayankj...@gmail.com"
>
> <contactmayankj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > I got the below paper and found the problems with which recursive make
> > have. I guess FreeBSD use recursive make. Can any one comment on it
> > and please clear my doubts why we use recursive make.
>
> >http://aegis.sourceforge.net/...
>
> Sigh...development environment question.  Recursive make is useful
> whenever a project has a number of subprojects; it makes it possible
> to work on a subproject without rebuilding the whole project until
> absolutely necessary.
>
> The two key points of that article have nothing to do with recursive
> make:
> * dependency information must be global.
> * Subprojects should be built in an order that respects their
> dependencies on each other.
>
> Ultimately, this is a hard-to-fix problem with the GNU autotools, that
> should be eliminated at the design stage when making a new makefile
> generation system.  The LLVM build system (used by the CLang project
> as well [http://clang...], C++ support expected in a couple
> of years) uses their GenLibDeps.pl script to force building libraries
> in the correct order (both by prohibiting cyclic library dependencies,
> and thinking of dependencies in library terms rather than object-file
> terms).

Thanks a lot for your prompt response. Can I easily used to do global
make using auto tools.
Mayank Jain

zaimoni

9/10/2008 5:40:00 AM

0

On Sep 9, 8:07 pm, "contactmayankj...@gmail.com"
<contactmayankj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 11:03 pm, zaim...@zaimoni.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 10:53 am, "contactmayankj...@gmail.com"
>
> > <contactmayankj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
>
> > > I got the below paper and found the problems with which recursive make
> > > have. I guess FreeBSD use recursive make. Can any one comment on it
> > > and please clear my doubts why we use recursive make.
>
> > >http://aegis.sourceforge.net/...
>
> > Sigh...development environment question.  Recursive make is useful
> > whenever a project has a number of subprojects; it makes it possible
> > to work on a subproject without rebuilding the whole project until
> > absolutely necessary.
>
> > The two key points of that article have nothing to do with recursive
> > make:
> > * dependency information must be global.
> > * Subprojects should be built in an order that respects their
> > dependencies on each other.
>
> > Ultimately, this is a hard-to-fix problem with the GNU autotools, that
> > should be eliminated at the design stage when making a new makefile
> > generation system.  The LLVM build system (used by the CLang project
> > as well [http://clang...], C++ support expected in a couple
> > of years) uses their GenLibDeps.pl script to force building libraries
> > in the correct order (both by prohibiting cyclic library dependencies,
> > and thinking of dependencies in library terms rather than object-file
> > terms).
>
> Thanks a lot for your prompt response. Can I easily used to do global
> make using auto tools.

The configure scripts generated from the GNU autotools are easy enough
(under a Bourne shell, such as bash) to use to make a Makefile for a
(global) make.

I've found the GNU autoconf documentation a useful guide to
portability issues in C code (especially portability to archaic
implementations); some of that generalizes to C++. It's worth
reviewing every few months.

I wouldn't say it's easy for a novice to use autoconf, with or without
its helpers automake and libtool, to make the configure script. (If I
had to self-tutor myself, I'd start with a known-good makefile and
playing around until one could replicate the known-good makefile with
autoconf.)

The learning curve to actually use GNU autoconf fluently, is a bit
steep for a novice. It generally installs more cleanly on *NIX than
Windows. It's probably not worth learning libtool or automake until
one has some facility with autoconf.

contactmayankjain@gmail.com

9/10/2008 10:55:00 AM

0

On Sep 10, 10:39 am, zaim...@zaimoni.com wrote:
> On Sep 9, 8:07 pm, "contactmayankj...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <contactmayankj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 11:03 pm, zaim...@zaimoni.com wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 9, 10:53 am, "contactmayankj...@gmail.com"
>
> > > <contactmayankj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
>
> > > > I got the below paper and found the problems with which recursive make
> > > > have. I guess FreeBSD use recursive make. Can any one comment on it
> > > > and please clear my doubts why we use recursive make.
>
> > > >http://aegis.sourceforge.net/...
>
> > > Sigh...development environment question.  Recursive make is useful
> > > whenever a project has a number of subprojects; it makes it possible
> > > to work on a subproject without rebuilding the whole project until
> > > absolutely necessary.
>
> > > The two key points of that article have nothing to do with recursive
> > > make:
> > > * dependency information must be global.
> > > * Subprojects should be built in an order that respects their
> > > dependencies on each other.
>
> > > Ultimately, this is a hard-to-fix problem with the GNU autotools, that
> > > should be eliminated at the design stage when making a new makefile
> > > generation system.  The LLVM build system (used by the CLang project
> > > as well [http://clang...], C++ support expected in a couple
> > > of years) uses their GenLibDeps.pl script to force building libraries
> > > in the correct order (both by prohibiting cyclic library dependencies,
> > > and thinking of dependencies in library terms rather than object-file
> > > terms).
>
> > Thanks a lot for your prompt response. Can I easily used to do global
> > make using auto tools.
>
> The configure scripts generated from the GNU autotools are easy enough
> (under a Bourne shell, such as bash) to use to make a Makefile for a
> (global) make.
>
> I've found the GNU autoconf documentation a useful guide to
> portability issues in C code (especially portability to archaic
> implementations); some of that generalizes to C++.  It's worth
> reviewing every few months.
>
> I wouldn't say it's easy for a novice to use autoconf, with or without
> its helpers automake and libtool, to make the configure script.  (If I
> had to self-tutor myself, I'd start with a known-good makefile and
> playing around until one could replicate the known-good makefile with
> autoconf.)
>
> The learning curve to actually use GNU autoconf fluently, is a bit
> steep for a novice.  It generally installs more cleanly on *NIX than
> Windows.  It's probably not worth learning libtool or automake until
> one has some facility with autoconf.

I agree the learning curve to actually use GNU autoconf fluently, is
a bit
>steep for a novicewith you. Can you quote some example where autoconf
is easily used to do global make.

cloud dreamer

7/24/2014 5:23:00 PM

0

On 24/07/2014 3:02 PM, thinbluemime2 wrote:

>
> You are assuming MH17 was shot from the ground. The data recorders will
> help to confirm or exclude that assumption.


How?

..

cloud dreamer

7/24/2014 5:51:00 PM

0

On 24/07/2014 4:08 PM, thinbluemime2 wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:22:38 -0400, cloud dreamer
> <reduce.reuse@recycle.net> wrote:
>
>> On 24/07/2014 3:02 PM, thinbluemime2 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You are assuming MH17 was shot from the ground. The data recorders will
>>> help to confirm or exclude that assumption.
>>
>>
>> How?
>
>
> Go to Wikipedia and read-up on the function of flight data recorders in
> civilian aircraft. Then think. Then wait for the report from the team
> examining the MH17 data.
>
>



No. Tell me. Seriously, how can you possibly conclude from any
information you read on Wiki about FDRs that it would tell investigators
that the missile came from the ground or from the air?

Explain.

..

thinbluemime

7/24/2014 6:39:00 PM

0

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:22:38 -0400, cloud dreamer
<reduce.reuse@recycle.net> wrote:

> On 24/07/2014 3:02 PM, thinbluemime2 wrote:
>
>>
>> You are assuming MH17 was shot from the ground. The data recorders will
>> help to confirm or exclude that assumption.
>
>
> How?


Go to Wikipedia and read-up on the function of flight data recorders in
civilian aircraft. Then think. Then wait for the report from the team
examining the MH17 data.


--
This communication may be unlawfully collected and stored by the National
Security Agency (NSA) in secret. The parties to this email do not consent
to the retrieving or storing of this communication and any related
metadata, as well as printing, copying, re-transmitting, disseminating, or
otherwise using it. If you believe you have received this communication in
error, please delete it immediately.

David Johnston

7/24/2014 6:54:00 PM

0

On 7/24/2014 12:50 PM, cloud dreamer wrote:
> On 24/07/2014 4:08 PM, thinbluemime2 wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:22:38 -0400, cloud dreamer
>> <reduce.reuse@recycle.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/07/2014 3:02 PM, thinbluemime2 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are assuming MH17 was shot from the ground. The data recorders will
>>>> help to confirm or exclude that assumption.
>>>
>>>
>>> How?
>>
>>
>> Go to Wikipedia and read-up on the function of flight data recorders in
>> civilian aircraft. Then think. Then wait for the report from the team
>> examining the MH17 data.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> No. Tell me. Seriously, how can you possibly conclude from any
> information you read on Wiki about FDRs that it would tell investigators
> that the missile came from the ground or from the air?
>
> Explain.
>
> ..

Airliners do have weather radar. Maybe it could pick up the direction
of an incoming missile? Not that I'm sure how it would matter.

thinbluemime

7/24/2014 7:09:00 PM

0

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:50:39 -0400, cloud dreamer
<reduce.reuse@recycle.net> wrote:

> On 24/07/2014 4:08 PM, thinbluemime2 wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:22:38 -0400, cloud dreamer
>> <reduce.reuse@recycle.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/07/2014 3:02 PM, thinbluemime2 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are assuming MH17 was shot from the ground. The data recorders
>>>> will
>>>> help to confirm or exclude that assumption.
>>>
>>>
>>> How?
>>
>>
>> Go to Wikipedia and read-up on the function of flight data recorders in
>> civilian aircraft. Then think. Then wait for the report from the team
>> examining the MH17 data.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> No. Tell me. Seriously, how can you possibly conclude from any
> information you read on Wiki about FDRs that it would tell investigators
> that the missile came from the ground or from the air?
>
> Explain.

The same way temperature sensing data is used to determine human caused
global system failure.


--
This communication may be unlawfully collected and stored by the National
Security Agency (NSA) in secret. The parties to this email do not consent
to the retrieving or storing of this communication and any related
metadata, as well as printing, copying, re-transmitting, disseminating, or
otherwise using it. If you believe you have received this communication in
error, please delete it immediately.