Re: [PATCH] coverage: test semantics of "dummy" per-object flags

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Stefano,

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:28:25AM CET:
> On Saturday 22 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 06:14:36PM CET:
> > > On Saturday 22 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > * tests/specflg-dummy.test: Check that we can "fool" automake
> > > into thinking that per-object CFLAGS are used by simply doing
> > > `foo_CFLAGS = $(AM_CFLAGS)', even if AM_CFLAGS is undefined.
> > 
> > I don't think it is so much "fooling", as the semantics are quite
> > clearly defined in the manual, and per-target flags are documented
> > in several places.  See 'Renamed Objects' and 'Objects created both
> > with libtool and without' for quite explicit mention of these
> > semantics.
> >
> Ah, but there I only see examples of "real" per-target flags, while
> my test is meant to check that even "dummy" ones triggers the use of
> renamed objects.

What is a "dummy" one then?

If foo_CFLAGS is set, then it is a per-target flag.  It doesn't matter
whether it is set to $(AM_CFLAGS) or -foo or anything else.  Well, it
shouldn't matter at least.

> What about this squash-in?

I'm fine with all your proposed changes.

Thanks,
Ralf