[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: using target-specific variables?
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: using target-specific variables? |
Date: |
Thu, 12 May 2005 15:21:41 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
* Stepan Kasal wrote on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 02:57:46PM CEST:
> On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 02:02:54PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Harald Dunkel wrote on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:43:51PM CEST:
> > > Anyway, if I introduce a line
> > >
> > > myexe: some_internal_tool_used_at_build_time
> > >
> > > then Automake shows the same misbehaviour: It assumes that
> > > I would like to redefine the build rule for myexe.
>
> well, this behaviour is documented in the Automake manual,
> in node ``Extending'':
>
> : Note that Automake does not make any difference between rules with
> : commands and rules that only specify dependencies. So it is not
> : possible to append new dependencies to an `automake'-defined target
> : without redefining the entire rule.
ACK.
> But Ralf said:
>
> > Well, that's just how `make' syntax works (portable make != GNU make).
>
> You mean that some make implementations don't allow you to specify extra
> dependencies in a rule with no commands (so called "separated
> dependencies")?
Nono, I did not mean that (but now that you point it out I see that I
missed the fact that his line quoted above looks differently from
before). Harald had, in one of his previous posts, a line like this:
target: CC=gcc3
and obviously, `CC=gcc3' was not intended to be a dependency of
`target', but some kind of syntax to change a variable esp. for the
rules of updating `target'. *This* intended behavior is a broken
assumption.
> I'm not convinced about this. Node "(autoconf.info)Limitations of Make"
> speaks about problems when you combine separated dependencies with so
> called "single suffix rules". But generally, separated dependencies
> should work.
Sure. Thanks for clarifying this point.
Regards,
Ralf