"Tom" == Tom Tromey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Following up my own post...
Tom if FOO
Tom var = a b c
Tom else
Tom var = d e f
Tom endif
Tom derived = $(var:%=%.c)
Tom Will this work correctly? In this situation we have to give
Tom `derived' the same conditions as
Tom Tromey wrote:
if FOO
var = a b
endif
derived = $(var:%=%.c)
if BAR
var = c d
endif
Isn't the order irrelevant here since derived won't be evaluated until
it's used?
Um, the gmake manual calls this "expanded when read, except for the shell
commands in
"Derek" == Derek R Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if FOO
var = a b
endif
derived = $(var:%=%.c)
if BAR
var = c d
endif
Derek Isn't the order irrelevant here since derived won't be
Derek evaluated until it's used?
No, because we're talking about having automake itself expand the
"Kevin" == Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kevin It'd be nice to be able to embed little fragments of perl to do
Kevin things like that, for the "static" case that is. But perhaps
Kevin that idea has come up before.
I've long resisted letting the user extend Makefile.am with Perl code.
I
"Akim" == Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Akim Yep, by default Automake must not let the users do nonportable
Akim things. I'm sorry about that, but I believe it's a strong
Akim requirement.
I'm finally following up to this -- it was buried in my overly large
automake mailbox.
"Pavel" == Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-($from = $2) =~ s/(\W)/\\$1/g;
+($from = $2) =~ s/(\W)/$1/g;
Pavel I don't understrand this. This change will affect the
Pavel traditional rules as well. It should probably be a separate
Pavel patch if it fixes a
Hello, Alex!
Here is a new version of the patsubst patch against cvs HEAD.
Thanks! Were are getting closer.
+ * automake.in (expand_contents): add new function to perform
+ the patsubst expansion
+ (value_to_list): add support for patsubst style variable
+ substitution.
+
Pavel Roskin writes:
- ($from = $2) =~ s/(\W)/\\$1/g;
+ ($from = $2) =~ s/(\W)/$1/g;
I don't understrand this. This change will affect the traditional rules as
well. It should probably be a separate patch if it fixes a separate issue.
You may even need a test
Here is a new version of the patsubst patch against cvs HEAD.
It is now smaller due to the removal of a superflous option, and has
my instead of local etc. Also the conditional test is improved.
After applying the patch remember to make the .test files
executable. That has caught me out on
Hello, Alex!
Sorry for another delay. Your patch is very important, but unfortunately
I'm have been very busy recently.
Here is an updated patsubst patch against CVS automake. Any patsubst
style variables are now staticly expanded by automake, thus avoiding
make portability problems.
We now
"Pavel" == Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pavel Hello! Trying to catch up with the mailing lists :-)
Pavel I'm surprised that this patch has not been applied since
Pavel October. I believe it's very valuable. I even considered doing
Pavel it myself.
We ended stuck with a portability
Hello!
Trying to catch up with the mailing lists :-)
I'm surprised that this patch has not been applied since October. I
believe it's very valuable. I even considered doing it myself.
b) default static expansion to off, avoids surprising anyone depending
on dynamic expansion by make,
Alex Hornby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# Makefile.am fragment
FOO = foo bar
BAR = ${FOO:%=%.c}
...
What do people think?
It'd be nice to be able to embed little fragments of perl to do things
like that, for the "static" case that is. But perhaps that idea has
come up before. Or
Alexandre Oliva writes:
On Oct 27, 2000, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, by default Automake must not let the users do nonportable
things.
I tend to agree. But I wouldn't say `must not', I'd say `should not'.
What is the policy regarding changes to non-portable
On Oct 27, 2000, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, by default Automake must not let the users do nonportable
things.
I tend to agree. But I wouldn't say `must not', I'd say `should not'.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC
| Akim,
Hi Alex,
Glad to see your progresses!
| Here is a patch to add patsubst support to value_to_list. I've
| included a new test case "patsubst.test" as well.
That's great news! Thanks a lot!
But I'm going to be a pain, especially because I'm not the official
maintainer of Automake,
Akim,
Okay, here is patsubst patch v2. New since last time:
* ChangeLog entry formatting
* NEWS entry
* Documentation (first texinfo usage, please beware!)
The _PROGRAMS based example in the documentation needs a patsubst
supporting make (e.g. GNU and Solaris work). This is because the
"Alex" == Alex Hornby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alex Akim,
Alex Okay, here is patsubst patch v2.
Thanks!
Alex The _PROGRAMS based example in the documentation needs a
Alex patsubst supporting make (e.g. GNU and Solaris work). This is
Alex because the program target writes prog_SOURCES to the
Akim Demaille writes:
Sorry, I'm confused, and the documentation snippet didn't really
enlighten me :(
Hi Akim,
The reasoning was fairly tortured :)
To document the patsubst internal change I had to invent a contrived
example so that the user could see the expansion. That example
19 matches
Mail list logo
