> I've been struggling for some time now with how to write rules for
> commands that generate multiple targets
A familiar and annoying problem: make really believes in commands that
generate just one (relevant) file, and doesn't fit so well with ones
that generate several.
> The next thing to tr
Correcting myself: I missed out the $@ in
y.tab.h y.tab.c y.output: yacc.ts
tar xf $< -m $@
which ensures that each target is the only thing extracted when the
rule to generate it is executed,
Eddy.
___
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-m
[mailto:bug-make-bounces+mdorey=bluearc@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Edward
Welbourne
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 02:45
To: tom honermann
Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Static multiple target rules
> I've been struggling for some time now with how to write rules for
> commands tha
On 3/2/2010 2:45 AM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
I've been struggling for some time now with how to write rules for
commands that generate multiple targets
A familiar and annoying problem: make really believes in commands that
generate just one (relevant) file, and doesn't fit so well with one
> The only downsides to this I see are:
>
> 1: The duplicate file storage. Probably not a big deal.
> 2: The extra processing time to archive and extract the files. Again,
> probably not a big deal.
> 3: The "why'd they do that?" questions coming from people unfamiliar
> with the technique.
al
On 3/3/2010 2:03 AM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
Another possibility crossed my mind over-night, with which I haven't
experimented, but that seems like it theoretically should work.
Replace the touch-file with a phony rule:
yacc.ts: grammar.y
yacc -d -v $^
y.tab.h y.tab.c y.output .
On 3/29/2010 2:18 PM, tom honermann wrote:
.INTERMEDIATE: yacc.ts
all: y.tab.h y.tab.c y.output y.tab.o
clean:
rm -f y.tab.h y.tab.c y.output y.tab.o
grammar.y:
@touch $@
yacc.ts: grammar.y
@echo "Running yacc..."
@sleep 1
On 3/2/2010 5:18 PM, tom honermann wrote:
On 3/2/2010 2:45 AM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
I've been struggling for some time now with how to write rules for
commands that generate multiple targets
A familiar and annoying problem: make really believes in commands that
generate just one (relevant)
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:54 PM, tom honermann wrote:
> Paul, would you be opposed to a patch that implements support for static
> multiple target rules using the above syntax?
> Any particular concerns or requirements you would have?
...
> a1 (b1 b2 b3): d1
> touch -r $^ $@
>
> Note the s
> (While I don't think the sysV syntax is *great*, I personally think
> it's a better choice than overloading the meaning of parentheses.)
+1
It also avoids the problem of having to make sense of nesting, e.g.
>>(b1 (c1 c2)): d1
Eddy.
___
>>y.tab.h y.tab.c y.output: yacc.ts
I don't actually see that y.output serves any role in this; simply
remove every reference to it and your example should be clearer.
>>y.tab.o: y.tab.c y.tab.h
I don't understand .INTERMEDIATE well enough to know why this chain
fails to lead to y.tab.o'
On 3/30/2010 2:14 AM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
y.tab.h y.tab.c y.output: yacc.ts
I don't actually see that y.output serves any role in this; simply
remove every reference to it and your example should be clearer.
It actually does serve a roll for testing purposes. Try the following
On 3/29/2010 8:20 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:
Hmm. SysV make has offered the desired feature with the syntax
b1 + b2 + b3: d1
touch -r $^ $@
Ah, thank you! I wasn't aware of a precedent syntax for this feature.
I definitely agree with
using this syntax over what I proposed for comp
On 3/30/2010 2:08 AM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
(While I don't think the sysV syntax is *great*, I personally think
it's a better choice than overloading the meaning of parentheses.)
+1
It also avoids the problem of having to make sense of nesting, e.g.
(b1 (c1 c2)): d1
True,
On 3/31/2010 1:01 AM, tom honermann wrote:
True, but it introduces the problem of making sense of these:
+ b1 + b2 +: d1
b1 + + b2: d1
b1 + b2 b3: d1
Solaris 10 make appears to silently drop dangling and extra '+'
connectors - which is convenient
for handling macros that are empty
On 3/30/2010 11:35 PM, tom honermann wrote:
On 3/29/2010 8:20 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:
Hmm. SysV make has offered the desired feature with the syntax
b1 + b2 + b3: d1
touch -r $^ $@
Ah, thank you! I wasn't aware of a precedent syntax for this
feature. I definitely agree with
us
16 matches
Mail list logo
