On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 05:53 -0800, Jamie Cuesta wrote: >> http://blog.melski.net/2013/01/01/pragma-multi-and-rules-with-multiple-outputs-in-gnu-make/ >> describes a (IMHO very significant, perhaps even "gaping") limitation of >> GNU make (and offers a (IMHO) clean/elegant solution to same). > > We had a discussion about this feature a number of years ago. There was > syntax proposed and discussed and possibly even a patch created although > I'm not sure if it ever got to the level of finished and apply-able (one > thing that I really like to see in any patch for new capabilities is new > regression tests for example). > > The thread can be found here: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/make-alpha/2002-12/msg00000.html > > There may have been other similar threads since, I can't remember. > > I'm not so thrilled about the idea of having a #pragma concept that > changes the way normal rules are interpreted.
Here is a thread that I started a while back that discusses this issue: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-make/2010-04/msg00052.html I very much would like to see this issue resolved, but I agree with Paul that the #pragma syntax may not be the best way to do it. I think that some sort of new syntax (see the thread below that Paul linked to) would be useful: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/make-alpha/2002-12/msg00000.html Cheers, Lane _______________________________________________ Help-make mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
