Re: Why docs/term.h ???

[Petr M. <mi...@ph...>]

> But Lars introduced a change (revision 1.44 of docs/Makefile.in) that
> relies on a separate file, docs/term.h, built by concatenating and
> preprocessing the config.h file and a selection of terminal driver
> sources listed in docs/Makefile.in, $(CORETERM):
>
> term.h: $(CORETERM)
>         @echo "Building term.h"
>         @cat ../config.h $(CORETERM) > term.c
>         $(CPP) $(DEFS) $(DEFAULT_INCLUDES) $(INCLUDES) $(CPPFLAGS)  \
>             -DTERM_DRIVER_H -DTERM_HELP term.c | \
>           sed '/^ *$$/d;/^#/d' >$@
>         @rm -f term.c
>
> The problem with this construction is that the logical connection between
> config.h and the decision which terminal drivers to include exists *only*
> inside src/term.h, so this method completely fails to screen out the
> unwanted drivers.
>
> So: why can't the doc2*.o files just refer to ../src/term.h?  What is
> docs/term.h needed for?  I guess this question goes mainly to Lars, but
> any insight from others would be valuable.

In summary: it is obviously only gnuplot.gih which likes to be created with
only those terminals compiled into the gnuplot executable, right?

Then, the particular piece of Makefile, should use the original method of
creating its own xxxterm.h, and delete it after creation. All other output
formats of gnuplot documentation will lists all terminals.

Should it be like that?

---
PM