This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: libcpp's aclocal.m4 regeneration question. Also is it time fora toplevel "m4" directory?


>>Also now that we are moving to automake 1.9, shouldn't we be split out
>>all the extra macros we use into individual files within a toplevel m4
>>directory as the automake people recommend?  The generated aclocal and
>>configure would become very small if we were to follow that advice.
>
> Yes, I think that would be a good move.

Another nice project would be to use aclocal also in directories that do not use Automake.

While I agree that splitting macros across several files would be a good move, I do not see how it would reduce the size of aclocal.m4 (aclocal 1.8.5 already uses m4_include for .m4 files *within the tree*) and, especially, of configure scripts.

Zack: I'm working on the libcpp Makefile now.

Paolo


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]