On Tue, 1 May 2012, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:09:36PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 03:03:20PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > ^^^^
> > Surely the statute of limitations has expired on that one!
>
> Probably. :-)
>
> Sadly the archive doesn't go back before May 1995, so I can't find out the
> "why" on this part of commit
>
> @@ -173,11 +195,15 @@ $spitshell >>Makefile <<'!NO!SUBS!'
> miniperl: $& miniperlmain.o $(perllib)
> $(CC) $(LARGE) $(CLDFLAGS) -o miniperl miniperlmain.o $(perllib) $(libs)
>
> +miniperlmain.o: miniperlmain.c
> + $(CCCMD) $(PLDLFLAGS) $*.c
> +
> perlmain.c: miniperlmain.c config.sh makefile $(static_ext_autoinit)
> sh writemain $(DYNALOADER) $(static_ext) > tmp
> sh mv-if-diff tmp perlmain.c
>
> perlmain.o: perlmain.c
> + $(CCCMD) $(PLDLFLAGS) $*.c
>
> # The file ext.libs is a list of libraries that must be linked in
> # for static extensions, e.g. -lm -lgdbm, etc. The individual
>
>
> How come those rules are needed? Surely they're covered by the default
> suffix rule for .o to .c ?
Yes, they should be covered. Removing them seems to do no harm. I don't
know why they are there.
> > Yes, that sounds sane. Thanks for cleaning up.
>
> I think it's necessary for a long term future. Without trying to fight for
> simplification where it's actually possible, we're going to end up so mired
> in complexity that we'll never be able to fix something without introducing
> more bugs in an uncontrolled chain reaction.
I thought we passed that threshold long ago. Anyway, yes, cleaning up is
good.
The biggest problem is that different pieces were submitted by
different porters solving similar problems on different systems in
very different ways. Some were easier to integrate than others.
(See, for example, the os2 Makefile.SHs fragments.)
Anyway, cleanup is good. Have the appropriate amount of fun.
--
Andy Dougherty doughera@lafayette.edu
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next