[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: crutch installation

> From roland@xxxxxxxxxxx Thu Feb 15 22:14:09 1990
> I can see two ways to do it: 1) make a CCC analogous to CC that runs the 
> preprocessor output for each file through the crutch then invokes CC
> with the appropriate substitutions.  Advantage: it treats the crutch
> as a fix to cfront, which, conceptually, is what it is. Disadvantage:
> you have the overhead of an extra pass even where you know you won't
> need it.  2) do it like stubble: the makefiles involved recognize
> some characteristic of the file name. BIG Disadvantage: it further
> complicates an already messy naming scheme.  As a kludgy solution, I
> suggest a #define HALE to be included at the beginning of source files
> that don't need the crutch.  

2) is the way to do it.  You rename the file of any program that needs
the crutch, and the makefile ruleset automatically recognizes that
you must make the cxx file from the crutch-input file.  Thus only those
files that need crutch get crutched.

(.cmm for c--?  B-) )

> BTW when I run cpp on a file, then the crutch, then CC, it works
> but I get "undefined function" warnings.  Is there some magic I might
> be missing about sandwiching something between preprocessor and
> compiler?

Let me see an example next time we're both in.