[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[sr #106268] Please implement -M option for M4!
From: |
anonymous |
Subject: |
[sr #106268] Please implement -M option for M4! |
Date: |
Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:59:40 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20070530 Fedora/1.0.9-1.fc5 SeaMonkey/1.0.9 |
URL:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/support/?106268>
Summary: Please implement -M option for M4!
Project: GNU M4
Submitted by: None
Submitted on: Wednesday 02/20/2008 at 21:59 UTC
Category: None
Priority: 5 - Normal
Severity: 1 - Wish
Status: None
Privacy: Public
Assigned to: None
Originator Email: address@hidden
Open/Closed: Open
Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: None
_______________________________________________________
Details:
It would be very nice if GNU M4 supported the -M flag
(and perhaps -MM) like GCC (which has had it for ages).
Over the years I have had several encounters with
Richard M. Stallman of the following form:
DMW: Adding a %include directive to bison would be a nice
feature.
RMS: Do this using some external macro pre-processor, such
as M4. Don't clutter up bison with something that
can be performed better using some other tool.
He is right, of course.
However, there is no simple (nor difficult) method for
automatically generating Makefile dependencies for such
hacks. This is especially true when include file names
encountered by M4 are obtained via macro expansion.
No external shell script or other hack should reasonably
be expected to reproduce all of this internal M4
functionality just to obtain a list of referenced
include files. Having M4 keep an internal list of
filenames touched, however, should be pretty simple.
If M4 is to be the standard tool to lean on for
implementing ad-hoc "include" functionality, then M4
should definitely support automatic dependency
generation.
More recent versions of gcc now have an entire suite
of additional -M style "bells and whistles" options,
and M4 may eventually need to follow suite. I would
definitely settle for plain old -M initially. (Of
course -MM would also be nice to have as part of
the initial rollout.)
David Warme
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/support/?106268>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
- [sr #106268] Please implement -M option for M4!,
anonymous <=