> From: Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: grischka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected] > Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:43:36 -0400 > > I was thinking about this today. It seems like it would be a useful > thing to store a "canonical" name for a given file, even on POSIX > systems.
That's fine, too, although it will need to use a system-dependent method for canonicalizing file names. > One minor nit is that make conflates "targets" with "files"; > not all targets are files and it's conceivable that you wouldn't want to > canonicalize targets. Why would it be bad to canonicalize non-file targets? If Make knows that they are not files (like in .PHONY targets), Make will not access the canonical names. And if it does't know, it actually tries to `stat' them today already, which in effect is canonicalizing them, right? _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
