On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 21:51 +, Olly Betts wrote:
>
> I can't think of a way to easily dig out statistically useful data
> from a VCS or Google code search on how often it happens either to me
> or
> generally. But I mainly offered it as a more concrete example of the
> sort of issues I had i
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:15:10PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> elc-stamp: $(elc_stamp_SOURCES)
> @rm -f [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> @touch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> $(elc_stamp_COMMAND)
> @mv -f [EMAIL PROTECTED] $@
Hmm, what's the reason for "rm -f" before "touch" here?
Cheers,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:15:26AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Olly Betts wrote on Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 03:53:11AM CET:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:15:10PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > That would drive us
> > > further away from being able to copy the contents of Makefile.am into
>
Hello Olly,
* Olly Betts wrote on Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 03:53:11AM CET:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:15:10PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Olly Betts wrote on Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 01:30:31AM CET:
>
> > > data.c data.h::: data.foo
> > > foo data.foo
> >
> > Yuck. Let's bette
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:15:10PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Olly Betts wrote on Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 01:30:31AM CET:
> > I don't have a concrete proposal, but it seems that this would need
> > to be controllable rather than automatically adjusting any rule with
> > multiple targets, if onl
Hello Olly,
Thanks for bringing this up.
* Olly Betts wrote on Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 01:30:31AM CET:
> I've read (and use the recipes from) the automake manual section
> "Handling Tools that Produce Many Outputs". However, these recipes
> require a lot of boilerpla
On 2007-11-27, Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Olly Betts wrote:
>> My experience is that multi-output rules often aren't protected at all,
>> and parallel make is unreliable on such projects. This is becoming much
>> more of an issue, as multicore boxes are now m
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Olly Betts wrote:
My experience is that multi-output rules often aren't protected at all,
and parallel make is unreliable on such projects. This is becoming much
more of an issue, as multicore boxes are now mainstream.
What relationship is there between parallel make and m
On Nov 27, 2007 9:54 AM, Olly Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In fact, none of the real examples I have to hand fit into the mould of
> a collection of implicit rules with a common basename.
>
> Cheers,
> Olly
Just to toss a couple more pennies into the pot, I am currently working
on a po
On 2007-11-27, Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 12:30:31AM +, Olly Betts wrote:
>> data.c data.h::: data.foo
>> foo data.foo
>
> But this looks like too much magic for a feature which is not used
> that much.
My experience is that multi-output r
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 12:30:31AM +, Olly Betts wrote:
> "Handling Tools that Produce Many Outputs". However, these recipes
> require a lot of boilerplate code which annoyingly obscures [...]
>
> It's just struck me that automake is good at inserting lots
I've read (and use the recipes from) the automake manual section
"Handling Tools that Produce Many Outputs". However, these recipes
require a lot of boilerplate code which annoyingly obscures the actual
rule they are protecting - a two line rule is swamped by a dozen lines of
boi
>>> "Oren" == Oren Ben-Kiki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Oren> I think it would make a good side note to the
Oren> documentation - either saying it is limited to GNU Make,
Oren> or explaining why it doesn't work (even though the manual
Oren> implies it should).
Thanks for the suggestion
My GNU Make manual says (10.5.2):
This pattern rule has two targets:
%.tab.c %.tab.h: %.y
bison -f $<
This tells make the command 'bison -d x.y' will make
both 'x.tab.c' and 'x.tab.h' ...
I know GNU make has a strange interpretation for multi-target rules, but
I read the above
Hello.
Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
[snip]
How does that look?
[snip]
Looks good to me!
Bye, Rich =]
--
Richard Dawe [ http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~phekda/richdawe/ ]
"You can't evaluate a man by logic alone."
-- McCoy, "I, Mudd", Star Trek
ecause
1. their was no agreement about it
2. I think it would be confusing
3. I'm lazy
How does that look?
Handling Tools that Produce Many Outputs
This section describes a `make' idiom that can be used when a tool
produces multiple output files.
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Personally, I positively *like* "witness" - it describes what it is
> > in a colourful way.
>
> For the records, this is the official English word for the same
> concept in logic. A witness of an existential quantifier \exists
> x. P(x) is precisely
> Personally, I positively *like* "witness" - it describes what it is
> in a colourful way.
For the records, this is the official English word for the same
concept in logic. A witness of an existential quantifier \exists
x. P(x) is precisely a t such that P(t). So I believe witness is
perfect
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 01:00:04PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > témoin = { witness, indicator, evidence }
> > [...]
>
> IMHO, indicator would be best.
That's just what I was going to say, but you beat me to it :-)
[Usually I avoid me-too pos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 01:11:35PM +0100, Schleicher Ralph (LLI) wrote:
> Alexandre Duret-Lutz writes:
> > Eric> On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 11:28:29PM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> > >> One of the output (here `data.c') is used as a witness of the
Alexandre Duret-Lutz writes:
> Eric> On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 11:28:29PM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> >> One of the output (here `data.c') is used as a witness of the run of
> >> `foo'. [...]
>
> Eric> Hmm. I understand what you're saying here, but "witness" seems
> Eric> an odd choice of
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Thanks for all your comments (public and private)!
>
"Eric" == Eric Siegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Eric> On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 11:28:29PM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> >> One of the output (here `data.c') is
Tim:
| Wouldn't this help somewhat for a case like this:
|
| data.h: data.c
| @if test -f $@; then \
|touch $@; \
| else \
|rm -f data.c; \
|$(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) data.c; \
| fi
Good point! I'll update
Hi Eric,
Thanks for all your comments (public and private)!
>>> "Eric" == Eric Siegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eric> On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 11:28:29PM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>> One of the output (here `data.c') is used as a witness of the run of
>> `foo'. [...]
Eric> Hmm.
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 10:49:07AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 10:36, Eric Siegerman wrote:
> >
> > > I believe this fails on the following corner case. Suppose the
> > > date ordering is like this (with data.h being the oldest):
> > > data.h data.foo data.c
> >
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 10:49:07AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 10:36, Eric Siegerman wrote:
>
> > I believe this fails on the following corner case. Suppose the
> > date ordering is like this (with data.h being the oldest):
> > data.h data.foo data.c
> >
> > data
> >What we need is a rule that forces a rebuild when data.h
> is missing.
> >
> > data.c: data.foo
> > foo data.foo
> > data.h: data.c
> > @if test -f $@; then :; else \
> >rm -f data.c; \
> >$(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) data.c; \
On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 10:36, Eric Siegerman wrote:
> I believe this fails on the following corner case. Suppose the
> date ordering is like this (with data.h being the oldest):
> data.h data.foo data.c
>
> data.h is out of date with respect to data.foo, so one wants to
> rebuild it, bu
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 11:28:29PM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>One of the output (here `data.c') is used as a witness of the run of
> `foo'. [...]
Hmm. I understand what you're saying here, but "witness" seems
an odd choice of words to say it. I can't think of a better one
offhand, t
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a new section I'd like to add to the FAQ. It has been
> discussed two or three times on the list.
It would be useful to have this in the Texinfo documentation for
GNU Make, not just for Automake.
Hi Alexandre!
On Saturday, January 31, 2004, at 10:28 pm, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
That way, if `data.h' is required and `data.foo' is out of data, the
dependency on `data.c' will trigger the build.
That way, if `data.h' is required and `data.foo' is out of _date_, the
Cheers,
Gary.
-
Thank you Robert, Eric, and Bruce.
I've installed it with your suggestions.
--
Alexandre Duret-Lutz
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 23:28:29 +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> I'm posting it here for comment. (In fact I'm mainly hoping
> that some kind fellow will point out English mistakes...)
It is well written.
> One of the output (here `data.c') is used as a witness of the run of
> `foo'.
Perhaps:
On Sun, 2004-02-01 at 09:28, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> This is a new section I'd like to add to the FAQ. It has been
> discussed two or three times on the list.
>
> I'm posting it here for comment. (In fact I'm mainly hoping
> that some kind fellow will point out English mistakes...)
Cute.
This is a new section I'd like to add to the FAQ. It has been
discussed two or three times on the list.
I'm posting it here for comment. (In fact I'm mainly hoping
that some kind fellow will point out English mistakes...)
Handling Tools that Produ
35 matches
Mail list logo
