On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:18:08AM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 25/11/2021 13:39, Anthony PERARD wrote: > > I guess it's easier to remember that %.E does "$(CC) -E" or "$(CPP)". > > > > -%.o %.i %.s: %.c tools_fixdep FORCE > > +%.o %.i %.s %.E: %.c tools_fixdep FORCE > > $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=$(*D) $(*D)/$(@F) > > So what I hadn't realised when asking was that Linux calls this .i and > we've already got support for what I wanted. Sorry :) > > Thus, I suspect we probably don't want to take an extra %.E alias to the > existing %.i, although... > > > > > -%.o %.s: %.S tools_fixdep FORCE > > +%.o %.s %.E: %.S tools_fixdep FORCE
> > +$(obj)/%.E: $(src)/%.c FORCE > > + $(call if_changed_dep,cpp_i_c) > > +$(obj)/%.E: $(src)/%.S FORCE > > + $(call if_changed_dep,cpp_s_S) > > ... I don't currently see support for %.i from %.S in the tree. That > one probably would be useful to introduce. It's %.s for %.S, easy ;-) Yep, %.s may run `gcc -S` or `gcc -E`. And %.i may run `gcc -E` or may not run at all. It seems that Linux have the same rules. So, I guess to run gcc -E, one have to run `make dir/target.i || make dir/target.s` currently, :-). Another thing, %.s:%.S was broken for a while, and no one complained. Cheers, -- Anthony PERARD
