Re: actxprxy/qmgrprxy: Specify dlldata.c in C_SRCS instead of in EXTRA_OBJS to allow dependencies to be generated.

[Alexandre Julliard]

"Rob Shearman" <robertshearman(a)gmail.com> writes:
> @@ -6,9 +6,9 @@ MODULE    = actxprxy.dll
>  IMPORTS   = rpcrt4 kernel32 ntdll
>  EXTRADEFS = -DREGISTER_PROXY_DLL -DPROXY_CLSID_IS="{ 0xb8da6310, 0xe19b, 0x11d0, { 0x93, 0x3c, 0x00, 0xa0, 0xc9, 0x0d, 0xca, 0xa9 } }"
>
> -EXTRA_OBJS = dlldata.o
> -
> +# Note: dlldata.c is auto-generated
>  C_SRCS = \
> +	dlldata.c \ 
>   usrmarshal.c

This is wrong, C_SRCS is for source files only. Dependencies for
dlldata.c are already generated automatically anyway.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org

actxprxy/qmgrprxy: Specify dlldata.c in C_SRCS instead of in EXTRA_OBJS to allow dependencies to be generated.

[Rob Shearman]

2008/10/9 Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org>:
> "Rob Shearman" <robertshearman(a)gmail.com> writes:
> > @@ -6,9 +6,9 @@ MODULE    = actxprxy.dll
> >  IMPORTS   = rpcrt4 kernel32 ntdll
> >  EXTRADEFS = -DREGISTER_PROXY_DLL -DPROXY_CLSID_IS="{ 0xb8da6310, 0xe19b, 0x11d0, { 0x93, 0x3c, 0x00, 0xa0, 0xc9, 0x0d, 0xca, 0xa9 } }"
> >
> > -EXTRA_OBJS = dlldata.o
> > -
> > +# Note: dlldata.c is auto-generated
> >  C_SRCS = \
> > +     dlldata.c \
> >       usrmarshal.c
>
> This is wrong, C_SRCS is for source files only. Dependencies for
> dlldata.c are already generated automatically anyway.

Yes, I have verified that by looking at the dependencies in the
makefile for these DLLs. I did check this before sending the patch,
but I'm not sure why I didn't see this before.

However, I'm not that happy with depending on a magic name here - is
there a way we can put this name into a makefile variable?

-- 
Rob Shearman

actxprxy/qmgrprxy: Specify dlldata.c in C_SRCS instead of in EXTRA_OBJS to allow dependencies to be generated.

[Alexandre Julliard]

"Rob Shearman" <robertshearman(a)gmail.com> writes:
> Yes, I have verified that by looking at the dependencies in the
> makefile for these DLLs. I did check this before sending the patch,
> but I'm not sure why I didn't see this before.
>
> However, I'm not that happy with depending on a magic name here - is
> there a way we can put this name into a makefile variable?

Not easily, you'd have to add yet another option to makedep, I'm not
sure I see the point. What's wrong with dlldata.c?

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org