This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libcpp's aclocal.m4 regeneration question. Also is it time fora toplevel "m4" directory?
- From: Paolo Bonzini <paolo dot bonzini at polimi dot it>
- To: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Kelley Cook <kcook at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:38:45 +0200
- Subject: Re: libcpp's aclocal.m4 regeneration question. Also is it time fora toplevel "m4" directory?
- References: <4129FC8E.4040909@gcc.gnu.org> <87k6vp3lm9.fsf@codesourcery.com>
>>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