GNU bug report logs - #11089
LINK determination

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
To: Jason DeVinney <jasondevinney <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 11089 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, automake <at> gnu.org
Subject: bug#11089: LINK determination
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:20:16 +0200

Severity: minor

[CC:ing bug-automake, so that we won't forget about the issue]

On 03/23/2012 03:32 AM, Jason DeVinney wrote:
> Hi all,
>
Hi Jason, sorry for the delay.

> I have a upc program with *.upc source files. I have some macros that
> make UPC code look effectively like C code and so it is easy to
> compile this program as a C program as well. My Makefile.am has the
> following lines
> 
> bin_PROGRAMS = foo
> common_sources = file1.upc file2.upc
> 
> if BUILD_UPC
>  foo_LINK = $(UPCLINK)
>  foo_SOURCES = $(common_sources)
> else
>  foo_LINK = $(LINK)
>  foo_SOURCES = $(common_sources:.upc=_c.c)
> fi
> 
> I also have some code in my Makefile.am to tell make how to create
> (with links) the file1_c.c and file2_c.c files. The BUILD_UPC variable
> is set with AC_SUBST in my configure.ac based on a configure option
> (--disable-upc). If no option is given then BUILD_UPC is set to 1, but
> if --disable-upc is given BUILD_UPC is zero. automake is correctly
> automatically determining which compiler to use in both cases, but for
> some reason it wants to use the UPCLINK linker in both cases. I read
> section 8.13.3.1 How the Linker is Chosen, in the automake
> documentation and it says that automake determines which linker to use
> based on the foo_SOURCES variable, so I can't see why I need to
> include the two foo_LINK lines in my Makefile.am (I would like to
> avoid this). Does anyone know why this is happening? Am I forgetting
> something?
>
I'd describe this as an automake limitation; not sure if it's worth
fixing (since yours is not a common use case, and the issue you're
facing has a simple-enough workaround, as you've already found out);
but it would be worth documenting IMHO.  Care to write a patch?
Otherwise, I'll try to cook one up myself before the 1.11.4 release
(but I'm short of time these days, so no promise).

Thanks,
  Stefano

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.