object files' names collision

[PowerKiKi]

Hi,
I came across a problem with qmake and Makefile.

I have this kind of directory structure :

src/NameSpace1/builder.cpp
src/NameSpace2/builder.cpp

Some statements :

There is many namespaces
Each namespace has its own directory
Each namespace is owned by a developper who is responsible for it
Developpers don't know what's in others' namepsaces

As you can see in the sample, some name collisions will happen. There is no problem at the C++ level, but during the compilation stage some targets will have the same name.
For instance:

$> qmake -project "DESTDIR = debug" -o MyApp.pro && qmake
$> make
It will output all object files in debug/. Considering the first example, it will be two same targets "debug/builder.o".


Is there any easy solution to create the same directory structure for object files as the source files ?

It should be something like that:

debug/NameSpace1/builder.o
debug/NameSpace2/builder.o

[high_flyer]

you can use the OBJECTS_DIR and MOC_DIR tags in the pro file of each subproject (we are talking about sub projects here right?)

[PowerKiKi]

Unfotunately we're not talking about subprojects. We have a single .pro files as we build a single programm (no DLL).

OBJECTS_DIR seems to be working only if we had a .pro file per namespace. Is it somehow possible ? Having many .pro files sounds a bit ackward in this case, doesn't it ?

What I'm looking for basically is a way to tell what object file path I want for every single src file.

[high_flyer]

What I'm looking for basically is a way to tell what object file path I want for every single src file.
I don't *know*, but I *think* this is not possible with qmake (*.pro) file.
If you are not willing or can't use a diferent project structre, then you will have to give up on atuomation, and use a custom hand made makefile.
There you can define each o file.

But to me, your project structure makes little sense.
Either use deferent development branches to the same project, or/and use sub projects - that would be my advice..

[wysota]

The problem is not with qmake but with make. I suggest you either rename one of the files or separate your build into subprojects consisting of static libraries which you can then link together to form the final binary code.

[PowerKiKi]

I guess I'll go for static library option. Thank you for that suggestion.

But still I don't get why my approach isn't supported. I'd say it's rather an easy obvious way to separate developpers' code without the need of "complicated" library linking.

[elcuco]

To any of the CMake gurus:

Is this possible under CMake? I will give it a try tomorrow.

[wysota]

But still I don't get why my approach isn't supported. I'd say it's rather an easy obvious way to separate developpers' code without the need of "complicated" library linking.
I'd say an obvious way is to use branches in your code repository.