[m-dev.] putting all those little files in subdirectories

[Fergus Henderson]

On 17-Mar-1998, Thomas Charles CONWAY <conway at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> Zoltan Somogyi, you write:
> > Another consideration that the name space redesign should address is
> > the ability for object files for more than one architecture to coexist.
...
> > I don't think you need more directories for this; including the platform
> > name in the object file name (and if necessary, the C file name)
> > would be enough.

I think it would be better to include the platform name in the
directory name rather than in the object file name.

> It would be really nice if we could use ELF sections or something
> to include the object code all in the one .o file, then let the
> linker sort out the mess at the end. Getting Make rules that could
> check datestamps within ELF sections would be a challenge. :-)

I think that would be awful (not to mention impossible to implement
in any portable fashion).  For example, how do I delete all the
object code for SPARC but keep the code for x86?

The problem is partly that you are slicing first by file name, and then
by architecture, whereas in general it is much better to slice the
other way first.  It is exacerbated by the fact that the object file is
a binary file in an opaque format.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh at 128.250.37.3        |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.