-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Building a library with multiple modules #70
Comments
Currently not, because the target (or programs) trigger the building upon its dependecy. In your case there is not a dependency. However, I was thinking to extend the target option in order to accept a list of targets. We can think to a logic if multiple targets are specified within a single output and mklib all objects a packed into a dingle library. What do you think? |
That would work. However, for the case where there are dozens of modules, it would get cumbersome to have to specify them all. Maybe:
|
Both the idea are interesting, monday I will investigate both of them. Great jacob! |
You can also create a file that is nothing else but a glue to have all libraries in the same file (assuming they do not have conflicting names - better would be to use the only keyword indeed).
and then use FoBiS.py to track the dependencies:
About the use of wildcards and how to find files to parse, maybe the example of A last comment about FoBiS.py user interface: I think the modules (the actually meaningful part) should be more clearly separated from the files (where the information is searched). I would find it more straightforward if the source files were only appearing in one location, for example indeed the -src flag, or even as for grep, as a free list of files and directory at the end of the command. The other flags (e.g. target) should only refer to module or executable names. So basically one the one side the pool of files, on the other what to do with the modules and executable found there. |
Hi @perrette , The container module is a possible workaround, but it not very clean (you will have a module into your packaged library of clear uselessness). I prefer to try to implement a more clean solution. Grep is surely of inspiration, but I prefer the platinum-searcher :-) As your last comment is concerning, indeed I am not able to see the point. Can you explain with more details? Which is the modification of Thank you for your great contribution. |
Just an idea, but in
This is probably more or less what FoBiS.py already does, but I think the user interface and FoBiS.py could benefit from such a better separation (like the above) between source files and actual semantic components of the programs (modules, program, possibly non-module subroutines). As an example:
(where the source files above could also be regular expression of course, and could have the Then to make a new shared library based on a bunch of source code, you could indeed accept multiple arguments in the target:
|
Ok, I am now travelling, and for the next 2 days I will be out of office.
|
see this #69 (comment) |
Is it currently possible to build a library that contains multiple modules that do not depend on each other? So, in my example, I have two files (
file1.f90
andfile2.f90
): each contain a module, but neither uses the other. I want to build these into a library. For just one file, I can useFoBiS.py build -target file1.f90 -mklib static
but this doesn't include file2.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: