[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: shortest stem
From: |
Boris Kolpackov |
Subject: |
Re: shortest stem |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:15:26 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
Hi Paul,
Paul D. Smith <address@hidden> writes:
> %.o : %.y
> %.o : %.c
> %-m.o : %.x
>
> we want the .o to be built from the .y, always, if it exists, even from
> -m.c. Or whatever.
>
> The nice feature of the current behavior in make is that it is simple to
> understand, completely flexible (you can get any behavior you want by
> modifying the order), and 100% predictable. Of course the downside is
> that it might be difficult, in very complex makefile environments, to
> get your rules to order the right way. And, I guess, the behavior is
> not what some people intuitively expect.
Yes, it is only simple and flexible in simple makefiles. Once you start
assembling rules from different makefile, things become unpredictable.
I also have never seen or can think of a real situation where the logic
you describe above would be application. Though that doesn't mean such
a use-case doesn't exist.
I am personally fine with either the enabled by default or enable by
mentioning a special target approach, so it is your call. Or we can try
to enable it by default to start with and see if the release candidate
uncovers anythings interesting.
Boris
--
Boris Kolpackov, Code Synthesis Tools http://codesynthesis.com/~boris/blog
Open-source XML data binding for C++: http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsd
XML data binding for embedded systems: http://codesynthesis.com/products/xsde
- Re: secondary expansion changes, (continued)
- Re: secondary expansion changes, Paul Smith, 2009/09/25
- Re: secondary expansion changes, Boris Kolpackov, 2009/09/25
- Re: secondary expansion changes, Paul Smith, 2009/09/25
- Re: secondary expansion changes, Boris Kolpackov, 2009/09/25
- Re: secondary expansion changes, Boris Kolpackov, 2009/09/28
- Re: secondary expansion changes, Paul Smith, 2009/09/28
- Re: secondary expansion changes, Boris Kolpackov, 2009/09/29
- Re: secondary expansion changes, Boris Kolpackov, 2009/09/30
- Re: shortest stem, Boris Kolpackov, 2009/09/24
- Re: shortest stem, Paul Smith, 2009/09/24
- Re: shortest stem,
Boris Kolpackov <=
- Re: shortest stem, Paul Smith, 2009/09/25
- Re: shortest stem, Boris Kolpackov, 2009/09/28
- Re: shortest stem, Paul Smith, 2009/09/28