In the absence of further feedback I'll be checking in the following patch
as the fix for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-650.
Index: etc/config/makefile.rules
===================================================================
--- etc/config/makefile.rules (revision 602767)
+++ etc/config/makefile.rules (working copy)
@@ -87,9 +87,17 @@
endif # ifneq ($(AS_EXT),".")
endif # ifneq ($(AS_EXT),)
+# make the rule match for sources matching *.out.cpp
+%.out.o: %.out.cpp
+ $(CXX) -c $(CPPFLAGS) $(CXXFLAGS) $(call CXX.repo,$<) $<
+
%.o: %.cpp
$(CXX) -c $(CPPFLAGS) $(CXXFLAGS) $(call CXX.repo,$<) $<
+# make the rule match for objects matching *.out.o
+%.out: %.out.o
+ $(LD) $< -o $@ $(LDFLAGS) $(LDLIBS) $(call CXX.repo,$<)
+
%: %.o
$(LD) $< -o $@ $(LDFLAGS) $(LDLIBS) $(call CXX.repo,$<)
Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> Well, what do you think?
>
> Martin
>
>
> Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>> Travis Vitek wrote:
>> [...]
>>> So now we are pretty sure we know what is happening. All target names
>>> that
>>> end in .out will match to the pattern rule for generating .out files
>>> first.
>>> The question is how to fix it. Here are the options I see.
>>
>> Thanks for the analysis!
>>
>>>
>>> 1. rename the source file so the generated executable will not end
>>> in
>>> .out
>>> 2. change the .out rule to generate output files with some other
>>> extension
>>> 3. create an rule that is a better match than %.out so that rule is
>>> selected for 22.locale.codecvt.out
>>> 4. create a new makefile that includes the original GNUmakefile.tst,
>>> but
>>> defines the more explicit rule mentioned in 3
>>>
>>> I dislike option 3 the most,
>>
>> Between 2 and 3 I think I actually like 3 better. It seems general
>> enough to eliminate all ill-effects of the overly generic %.out: %
>> rule. And it's very simple (at least in my tests it was):
>>
>> %.foo: %.foo.c
>> touch $@
>>
>>> and from the sound of it you won't want to use
>>> option 1. So how does option 2 sound?
>>
>> Another possibility might be to enable the %.out: % rule only for
>> examples and disable it for tests and everything else work? We don't
>> need to create .out files anywhere else, do we?
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/missing-build-line-for-22.locale.codecvt.out-tp12503279p14245955.html
Sent from the stdcxx-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
