From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,163994d4f34e92d0
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.66.74.225 with SMTP id x1mr1794933pav.45.1344318898544;
        Mon, 06 Aug 2012 22:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 p10ni724pbh.1!nntp.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!ctu-peer!ctu-gate!news.nctu.edu.tw!usenet.stanford.edu!postnews.google.com!r9g2000yqr.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: how to tell gnatmake to send executables to a different directory
 when compiling multi source?
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 02:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1ffdae87-74c9-4900-9645-bf1c5828e448@r9g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>
References: <jv2vu5$9tm$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <p646bl8ekmhm.qkoxmbj6j4fq$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <jv376e$sla$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <214bbd15-f7cb-4710-a6a7-64f37923bf4e@googlegroups.com>
 <jv3c8f$8oq$1@speranza.aioe.org> <87wr1moexq.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <jv3g7h$ib4$1@speranza.aioe.org> <87sjcaoa08.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <op.wh7xsqqmka8ora@aspire.local> <wcc6296cpvg.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <op.wh8gj1ckka8ora@aspire.local> <jv4tdn$mgc$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <op.wh9axtd0ka8ora@aspire.local>
 <50167d29$0$6570$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <jv60n8$6io$1@speranza.aioe.org> <jv6nv6$fji$1@dont-email.me>
 <873947cbja.fsf@catnip.gol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.98.68.197
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1343813849 26451 127.0.0.1 (1 Aug 2012 09:37:29
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:37:29 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: r9g2000yqr.googlegroups.com; posting-host=153.98.68.197;
 posting-account=pcLQNgkAAAD9TrXkhkIgiY6-MDtJjIlC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1;
 rv:10.0.4) Gecko/20120509 Firefox/10.0.4,gzip(gfe)
X-Received-Bytes: 3042
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2012-08-01T02:37:29-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Miles Bader wrote:
> "J-P. Rosen" writes:
>>> I do not know if this is what you refer to or not, but gcc can generate,
>>> _automatically_, a dependency file (.d extension) using the gcc -M flag.
>> (Disclaimer: I didn't know about that option).
>
>> However, I assume that this works only if the programmer properly used
>> the appropriate .h files, which is in no way required by C.
>
> It assumes nothing about the way .h files are used.
>
> It essentially emits the include-file graph in an appropriate format,
> usable by make.

In fact it does assume something. The assumption is, as is usual in
the C
world, hidden, so you don't see it.

The hidden assumption here is that the -I flags and environment
variables
passed to the compiler to find the include files are the same when
extracting the dependencies with -M and later when compiling using the
extracted dependencies.  Breaking this assumption breaks the build in
ways
impossible to predict and almost impossible to debug.

It takes a proper software engineer to detect hidden assumptions.
Jean-Pierre is one.

Hidden assumptions are *also* the devil.

--
Ludovic Brenta.
The plannings leverage a forward planning.