On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Paul D. Smith wrote: > fa> automake uses recursive makefiles, which is something I want to > fa> avoid. > > I wasn't suggesting automake in total, I was suggesting their dependency > generation style only... this is basically what's described on my > website.
hum... I must have got something wrong, then... Please, clarify this: does that method allow for proper handling of autogenerated files AND the usage of one single big makefile as opposed to multiple recursive makefiles? > fa> exe: exe-deps obj1.o obj2.o obj3.o > > fa> exe-deps: > fa> $(eval -include obj1.d obj2.d obj3.d) > > This is not reliable. > > The instant you want to start allowing parallel builds, which are > critical for today's software builds and for taking full advantage of > today's hardware, your method is no longer guaranteed to work. Isn't there any way to tell make to build exe-deps before any of the other prerequisites of exe, even with -jn, n > 1? I think there should be one, if there's not. > I thought you sent me an email saying that using the CVS source, it > worked? It works only in some situations, whilst in others it segfaults. I'm not quite sure which are those situations yet. I have to investigate further. There's one common behaviour, though: in any case, even if there's no segfault, if the file doesn't exist make doesn't invoke the rule to generate it, as it should instead do. > fa> I'm going away from that way of doing dependencies, I certainly > fa> don't want to go back to it. Anyway, I'm pointing out a bug which > fa> needs to be solved anyway. > > I agree the core dump needs to be solved (if it's not already in CVS). > > However, I'm not so sure I agree that the method your using would be > supported. I don't know that it wouldn't be, but I'm not at all > prepared to say right now that using $(eval ...) inside a command script > to enhance or modify make's internal dependency graph by adding more > prerequisites, would work. > > Make carries a lot of internal state during its walk of the dependency > graph, like where it is, what it's looking for, etc., and if you go > modifying the structure of that graph while make is in the middle of > resolving it I can't say for sure that everything will work properly. Yeah, I had that same concern, so I tried to check whether it worked, and to my surprise it worked. But later on I discovered that it didn't work as expected and didn't ALWAYS work, leading to segfaults. I suspect these segfaults and the general malfunctioning are due to the fact that make doesn't take into consideration that such an $(eval) construct might be used that way. I'm sure I hit an "hidden" and not foreseen feature of $(eval), which should be supported though, so to be consistent with the general $(eval) semantics. Fabio Alemagna _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
