On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 13:41 +0200, Reinier Post wrote:
Hmm, indeed:
| /tmp % cat Makefile
| %.1:; echo $*.1 for $@ $@
| %.e.1 %.f.1:; echo $*.1 for $@ $@
| %.c.1 %.d.1:; for f in $*.c.1 $*.d.1; do echo $$f for $@ $$f; done
| %.ab.2: %.a.1 %.b.1; cat $+ $@
| %.cd.2: %.c.1 %.d.1; cat $+
On Thu Apr 11 12:47:56 2013, psm...@gnu.org (Paul Smith) wrote:
On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 12:14 +0200, Reinier Post wrote:
It's just a shorthand for writing a lot of identical rules; it does NOT
mean that a single invocation if the rule will generate all three
targets, which is what you are
How come it only reran the rule once the second time?
All three targets were invalid.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Reinier Post reinp...@win.tue.nl wrote:
On Thu Apr 11 12:47:56 2013, psm...@gnu.org (Paul Smith) wrote:
On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 12:14 +0200, Reinier Post wrote:
It's just
On Thu Apr 4 16:17:58 2013, psm...@gnu.org (Paul Smith) wrote:
This is expected behavior. A rule like:
foo bar:
@echo $@
is exactly the same thing, to make, as writing:
foo:
@echo $@
bar:
@echo $@
It's just a shorthand for writing
On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 12:14 +0200, Reinier Post wrote:
It's just a shorthand for writing a lot of identical rules; it does NOT
mean that a single invocation if the rule will generate all three
targets, which is what you are expecting.
Incidentally: other workflow/inference languages can
There are commercial emulations of GNU make that can handle multiple
outputs. I don't want to plug them because that might be annoying. It's
just worth mentioning that it can be done.
Regards,
Tim
On 11 April 2013 11:14, Reinier Post reinp...@win.tue.nl wrote:
On Thu Apr 4 16:17:58 2013,
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Tim Murphy tnmur...@gmail.com wrote:
There are commercial emulations of GNU make that can handle multiple
outputs. I don't want to plug them because that might be annoying. It's
just worth mentioning that it can be done.
Can you provide an example of what
Hi,
The example that I'm familiar with has had to invent a way to specify
various special features without affecting make syntax - in other words
similar to the kind of problem that gmake itself faces.
I think you may see discussions about it earlier in this or other gmake
mailing lists but it's
On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 21:24 -0500, Roger Pepitone wrote:
TEST_TEXTS := test1.txt test2.txt test3.txt
$(TEST_TEXTS) : xtest.txt
echo Rebuilding $@
touch $(TEST_TEXTS)
xtest: $(TEST_TEXTS)
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Roger Pepitone
rogerpepitone.1...@gmail.com wrote:
##
TEST_TEXTS := test1.txt test2.txt test3.txt
$(TEST_TEXTS) : xtest.txt
echo Rebuilding $@
touch $(TEST_TEXTS)
xtest: $(TEST_TEXTS)
clean-xtest:
##
TEST_TEXTS := test1.txt test2.txt test3.txt
$(TEST_TEXTS) : xtest.txt
echo Rebuilding $@
touch $(TEST_TEXTS)
xtest: $(TEST_TEXTS)
clean-xtest:
rm $(TEST_TEXTS)
##
make clean-xtest
make xtest
11 matches
Mail list logo