Re: Cygwin compilation broken by bin_hook.c

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

>On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
>>    
>>
>>For the main gnuplot executable, binary.o should not be linked in. 
>>    
>>
>
>Well, then it shouldn't be listed in gnuplot_SOURCES, should it?
>

It isn't.  I took that out.  But in the case of Cygwin it appears 
"makefile.all" sources are constructed from all *.c files and then there 
is a list of ones not to include.

>> (Either bin_hook.o is a replica of binary.o or it is empty, depending 
>>on a configure switch.)
>>    
>>
>
>That's terminally ugly.
>

It works.

>  We will have to find a better way of doing that.
>

That's fine.

>BTW: it *is* possible to compile the same .c file into more than one .o
>file using different switches.
>

I couldn't think of a way to do that.  I'm assuming you mean the .o 
files will have different names.  There can't be a "binary.o" for 
gnuplot and a "binary.o" for bf_tests.  Otherwise the date check would 
end up causing confusion, I think.  "binary_this.o" and "binary_that.o" 
doesn't win a beauty contest either.

Dan