Re: [pcre-dev] PCRE autotools patch drg2

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Bob Rossi wrote:

> I was not compiling ucptable.c at all. I was successfully able to build
> and link pcre. So, I'm wondering if my patch was broken because it did
> not do this, or if it does not need to be compiled when building pcre.

It does not need to be compiled on its own, because
pcre_ucp_searchfuncs.c #includes it.

> I don't necessarily need to know the details, but the answer to the
> above question will help me understand what we should do with this file.

Oh dear. The has caused far too much confusion for such a small issue!
Daniel wants to rename it as ucptable.h because it is #included. I am
happy to go along with this. It seems that there will be less confusion
all round.

I originally called it ucptable.c because it contains compileable code,
not the kind of definitions and so on that you normally get in a .h
file. There doesn't seem to be a standard file extension for "this is
code that is #included rather than compiled as a file on its own". It's
probably just me thinking of .h as "heading stuff" rather than
"#included stuff".

> It just struck me as odd that a patch to add 'make dist' support would
> change the build system to start compiling a new file ....

I don't know the answer to this, but my surmise is that the changes
Daniel had for 'make dist' caused the automated system to think that it
should be compiling ucptable.c because it ended with .c, and that
renaming it as ucptable.h solved the issue.


--
Philip Hazel, University of Cambridge Computing Service.