This is the mail archive of the automake@gnu.org mailing list for the automake 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: AM_CPPFLAGS vs INCLUDES

From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at backtobasicsmgmt dot com>
To: automake at gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:17:15 -0700
Subject: Re: AM_CPPFLAGS vs INCLUDES
Organization: Back to Basics Network Management
References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0311251610540.22691-100000@scooby.simplesystems.org>

Bob Friesenhahn wrote:

My point was not entirely that the documentation was wrong.  It is an
extremely useful capability to be able to define a common base set of
CPPFLAGS and then use per-target CPPFLAGS to extend these (equivalent
to +=).  Otherwise the Makefile.am has to be very messy and large,
since as soon as you add one per-target CPPFLAGS, you then need to
start passing all CPPFLAGS via individual per-target CPPFLAGS

Are you sure about that last part Bob? I have Makefiles that do:

AM_CPPFLAGS = -I../foo -DBAR

src_foo_CPPFLAGS = -DBAZ $(AM_CPPFLAGS)

and this works just fine. I can then ensure that my common CPPFLAGS are incorporated for a target that also needs special flags.

References:
- Re: AM_CPPFLAGS vs INCLUDES
  - From: Bob Friesenhahn

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