On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 12:33 PM Jean-Baptiste Poittevin
wrote:
>
> By using a lot of PHONY targets, I think you're closing a door to one make
> greatest feature : not redoing those things that are already up to date.
>
> If you consider that every rule can generate a useful file (file containing
-- Forwarded message -
From: Britton Kerin
Date: Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: Making makefiles with primarily phony targets more friendly
To: Katherine Pata
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, 11:44 AM Katherine Pata wrote:
> I often find myself using makefiles to han
On Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 1:48 PM Paul Smith wrote:
> I'm trying to decide what the future is for GNU make's "build.sh"
> bootstrapping script. As you may recall, this script is provided to
> allow GNU make to build on systems which don't already have an instance
> of make installed. Its goal is to b
On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 8:19 AM Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 11:23:03AM -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> > OK, someone posted a question to SO and that led me to an hour or more
> > of banging my head against a wall trying to understand what's
> > happening... and I can't.
> >
> > T
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 6:17 AM Dmitry Goncharov
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 3:50 PM Britton Kerin wrote:
> > It looks like the .SILENT: with a recipe clobbers the .SILENT:
> > without
>
> Consider the following
>
> hello.tsk:
> hello.tsk: hello
$ cat Makefile
.ONESHELL:
SHELL = /usr/bin/perl
.SHELLFLAGS = -w -E 'use warnings FATAL => "all";' -E
all:
print 'it works'
$ make all
print 'it works'
Can't find string terminator "'" anywhere before EOF at -e line 1.
make: *** [Makefile:5: all] Error 255
$
Without .ONESHELL: the above wo
.SILENT: (without prerequisites) doesn't work as expected when
.SILENT: some_target (with prerequisites) is present:
$ cat Makefile
.SILENT:
.SILENT: target_a
target_a:
echo target_a_recipe
target_b:
echo target_b_recipe
$ make target_b
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 4:44 PM Dmitry Goncharov
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 3:05 PM Britton Kerin wrote:
>
> > If I understand right that the idea is a special case for .d files
>
> The question being discussed is what to do when make cannot include a
> make
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 8:33 AM Dmitry Goncharov
wrote:
>
> Follow-up Comment #8, bug #61226 (project make):
>
> > > Switching to -include robs the user of a useful message, should there be a
> real issue.
>
> > I'm not sure what this means: in what situation do we lose a useful
> message?
>
> -in
Follow-up Comment #18, bug #60297 (project make):
I strongly second Dmitry's proposal that something like .NOTINTERMEDIATE:
(preferably with a no-dependencies-means-all interpretation) should be added.
The IMO weird behavior of .SECONDARY where it effectively creates strange weak
dependencies jus
I don't like how .SECONDARY: (without prereqs) causes make to not
rebuild things wen intermediate files are missing, e.g. uncommenting
.SECONDARY in this make file causes make to not rebuild even when
foo.c.validation_stamp is removed:
OBJS = foo.o
#.SECONDARY:
OBJS = foo.o bar.o
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:24 AM Pete Dietl wrote:
>
> Speaking of
>
> > return value of a call to $(shell) is available in $(.SHELLSTATUS).
>
> I think it would be a nice addition to have some global setting where
> any failed $(shell )
> command automatically fails Make.
Agreed. I have a coupl
> I think .COMMANDCHANGE is not complex.
> Since it caches the expanded command, at worst it will re-run a script
> when before it would not have done so.
> So it's relatively low risk; at worst, it'll run a command more often than
> before.
> It won't rerun if only an environment variable changes
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 5:14 PM David A. Wheeler wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:40:53 -0800, Britton Kerin
> wrote:
> > No, just the rules that :Makefile, which you can easily tune if it matters.
> > Heck, you can include some_fragment.mk that has the recipes that
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 2:18 PM David A. Wheeler wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 12:10:26 -0800, Britton Kerin
> wrote:
> > The trickery required is not too fancy:
> >
> > foo.o: foo.c Makefile
> > ...
> > or
>
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 9:20 AM David A. Wheeler wrote:
>
> Idea: Add .COMMANDCHANGE and .CACHE
>
> Problem:
>
> Paul Smith noted on Sun, 09 Jun 2019 22:11:32 -0400:
> > Most of the requests I see these days that would require a "last state
> > database" wouldn't be helped by md5 checks: mainly th
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 4:56 AM David A. Wheeler wrote:
>
> Another idea: Enable .ONESHELL to be per-target.
>
> Problem: According to the docs .ONESHELL is global in effect,
> so using it in an existing makefile requires a lot of rework.
Strongly seconded, I would definitely use this. I've been
On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:46 PM Masahiro Yamada
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 10:38 AM Paul Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2019-06-09 at 18:46 -0400, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> > > As syntactic sugar,
> > > I'd like to see selected special targets allowed as dependencies.
> > > When this happens
On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 2:47 PM David A. Wheeler wrote:
>
> Idea: Allow certain special targets as dependencies
>
> Problem:
> It's often the case that a target also needs to be a special target. E.g.:
> .PHONY: all
> all: do-this do-that
>
> Obviously this *works*, but it consumes many extra lines
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 7:37 AM Paul Smith wrote:
>
> I'm publishing this back to the list as I don't like to have private
> conversations on these subjects; hopefully you don't mind.
>
> On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 11:19 -0800, Britton Kerin wrote:
> > I agree that
Hi guys, I tried this on help-make but was didn't get any response,
so I though I'd try again here. I'm interested in submitting patches to
implement something like this, but I don't want to waste my time if it's
a total non-starter. I'd like a --late-parse-rules (to parse all of rules
after var
I want to be able to say something like this:
.SECONDARY: %_openscad_poly
%_openscad_poly: stl_outline_2_openscad_poly.perl %_profile.stl
./$+ >$@
so that make will always leave my generated intermediate file around.
But this doesn't seem to work, so I have to either name
The documentation for the special .SECONDARY: target looks like this:
.SECONDARY
The targets which .SECONDARY depends on are treated as
intermediate
files, except that they are never automatically deleted. See
Chains of
Implicit Rules.
.SECONDARY with no pre
I would like to be able to tell make to automatically prefix all rules
and variables
that come from an include'ed makefile with a namespace prefix. So maybe
this syntax:
namespace foo_ include module_foo/Makefile
The Makefile in foo might have targets build, test, and install, and a
variable
I
> bk> Implicit rules can handle multiple target patterns, is there any
> bk> reason static pattern rules couldn't also?
>
> The reason is that static pattern rules are shorthand for writing
> explicit rules, not longhand for writing implicit rules.
>
> That is, a static pattern rule is turne
plit up the GOB_GENERATED_FILES variable
into three and write three static pattern rules to get the effect I want,
which is a bit clunky, especially since (with automatic dependency
tracking) I don't have to care about header files much, and don't have any
reason to put them in seperate vari
26 matches
Mail list logo
