Re: Compilation order. Help with makefiles, please!

From: Alan Mackenzie_JWA <alan.mackenzie_jwa@nxp.com>
To: rms@gnu.org
Cc: bug-cc-mode@gnu.org, acm@muc.de, alan.mackenzie_jwa@nxp.com,
	Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,
	emacs-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Compilation order. Help with makefiles, please!
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:57:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <OF97CAC1F0.06C1780B-ONC1257348.00301C92-C1257348.00311CC9@philips.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1IR11r-00083T-4K@fencepost.gnu.org>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1164 bytes --]

Hi, Richard and Stefan,

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote on 2007-08-31 09:34:55:

>     An "easy" solution is to prefer reading the newer .el files rather
>     than the older .elc when `requiring' a file during
>     byte-compilation.

Stefan, the essential issue here is to ensure that cc-{mode,engine}.el
actually get recompiled after a change in cc-langs.el.  This needs stuff
in the makefile.

>     To solve this problem, it would have to load the newer .el file
>     even if the feature is already provided.

There is stuff like this in cc-bytecomp.el - cc-require, cc-provide, and
so on.  I've a feeling that cc-require might load the .el file rather
than the .elc, but I'm not sure at the moment.  Byte compiling
cc-langs.el is a good idea anyway, to check for errors in cc-langs.

> That is quite different from `require', and I don't think we should
> change `require' to do that.  But we could add it as a separate new
> feature, perhaps called `compilation-require'.

> What do you think about that?

cc-bytecomp implements this sort of thing.  Possibly its functionality
could be absorbed into Emacs 23.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1589 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel