Murphy; bug-m...@gnu.org; make-w32@gnu.org
> Subject: RE: suggestion: new make function
>
> On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 11:03 -0700, Lawrence Ibarria wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: bug-make-bounces+libarria=nvidia@gnu.org [mailto:bug-
> make-
> &g
17 PM
> > To: Tim Murphy
> > Cc: bug-m...@gnu.org; make-w32@gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: suggestion: new make function
> >
> > I agree with Tim and with Tim's suggested API, in particular
> > "withfile". Involving the shell in something as basic and inherent
phy
> Cc: bug-m...@gnu.org; make-w32@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: suggestion: new make function
>
> I agree with Tim and with Tim's suggested API, in particular
> "withfile". Involving the shell in something as basic and inherently
> portable as writing to a file opens up a w
> I have limited sympathy for this type of situation, "multifile
> compilation" is against the general idea of make.
On the other hand, running ar once per .o file cost time (at least)
quadratic in the number of files, when I tried it. So "multifile
archiving" is perfectly standard - and it's usu
I agree with Tim and with Tim's suggested API, in particular
"withfile". Involving the shell in something as basic and inherently
portable as writing to a file opens up a world of portability issues,
in addition to the performance and readability problems mentioned.
Given that some platforms (Windo
>
> I find your suggestions more elagant than the original, they seem more
> general purpose, and less "let's introduce this feature to get around
> a specific problem". Of your two suggestions, I'd favor the "withfile"
> option, it would be both more powerful, and doesn't introduce the
> problem o
At Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:36:26 +0100,
Tim Murphy wrote:
> My apologies to Luke for forgetting "reply to all" and for forgetting
> my manners by using the word "sucks" when I should not have.
Now it's my turn to apologize, I just forwarded your original message
to me to the list. Sorry.
> > dumpOneL
My apologies to Luke for forgetting "reply to all" and for forgetting
my manners by using the word "sucks" when I should not have.
> I vote 'no'. This can easily be implemented in your
> Makefile. (assuming no single list item breaks the limit)
>
> dumpOneLine = $(foreach item,$(2),echo -n '$(item
At Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:09:42 -0700,
Lawrence Ibarria wrote:
> I have often hit problems with the limit of command line lengths
> many shells have (CMD.EXE in Windows in my case).
> This is a common case with few solutions, I have searched around:
>
> http://www.makelinux.net/make3/make3-CHP-5-SECT
