Skip to content
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

build: use subdir-objects for automake #157

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 12, 2014

Conversation

theuni
Copy link
Contributor

@theuni theuni commented Dec 12, 2014

Fixes #147. This does what it sounds like, putting objects in the subdir rather than root. Verified that it doesn't upset the current build, and doesn't cause problems when merged into bitcoin.

@sipa sipa merged commit 5190079 into bitcoin-core:master Dec 12, 2014
sipa added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 12, 2014
5190079 build: use subdir-objects for automake (Cory Fields)
real-or-random added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 25, 2024
…oin Core's approach

4706be2 cmake: Reimplement `SECP256K1_APPEND_CFLAGS` using Bitcoin Core approach (Hennadii Stepanov)
c2764db cmake: Rename `SECP256K1_LATE_CFLAGS` to `SECP256K1_APPEND_CFLAGS` (Hennadii Stepanov)

Pull request description:

  This PR address this hebasto/bitcoin#239 (comment):
  > For consistency with libsecp256k1:
  >
  > > > Is this code block supposed to achieve the same as our `SECP256K1_LATE_CFLAGS` (implemented by a user-defined function `all_targets_add_compile_options`) in libsecp256k1?
  > >
  > >
  > > It is. But this approach guaranties to override even options that are abstracted by CMake, for instance [#157 (comment)](hebasto/bitcoin#157 (comment)).
  >
  >    * If we agree that appending to rule variables is superior, should we also do this in libsecp256k1?
  >
  >    * And/or should we rename the `SECP256K1_LATE_CFLAGS` variable to `APPEND_CFLAGS`?

ACKs for top commit:
  real-or-random:
    utACK 4706be2

Tree-SHA512: 24603886c4d6ab4e31836a67d5759f9855a60c6c9d34cfc6fc4023bd309cd51c15d986ac0b77a434f9fdc6d5e97dcd3b8484d8f5ef5d8f840f47dc141de18084
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Many warnings in autoconf
2 participants