[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: implicit rules
From: |
Noel Yap |
Subject: |
Re: implicit rules |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:13:24 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040212) |
Paul D. Smith wrote:
%% Noel Yap <address@hidden> writes:
ny> I see. You wouldn't happen to have a patch that'll allow make to
ny> use the implicit rule for the former example, would you?
Don't know which example you're talking about when you refer to "the
former example", but this:
I think I meant "latter" (ie "%.mk: %.m"). How can I get make to use the "%.mk:
%.m" implicit rule to build aoeu/aoeu.mk?
>>> %.mk: %.mk
>>> cp $(<) $(@)
Just doesn't make sense. It's like saying:
foo.o : foo.o
How can a target depend on itself as a prerequisite? That requirement
cannot be satisfied given our current understanding of the laws of
space/time :).
The reason one might want something like "%.mk: %.mk" (rather than "foo.o: foo.o" which is different) is because of how implicit rule matching treats directories. For example, except for the spurious "Cyclic dependency" errors, in the end, make did
exactly what I intended.
IIUC, make can use "%.mk: %.mk" to match "aoeu/aoeu.mk: aoeu.mk". OTOH, IIUC, make should use
"%.mk: %.mk" to match "aoeu/aoeu.mk: aoeu.m" so I'm clearly missing something here.
You _COULD_, however, do this:
aoeu/%.mk : %.mk
cp $< $@
and then all would be right with the world. Or at least make would be
happy.
This rule is now not as generic as before; one would have to write a new rule
depending on where the target will be created.
Noel
- implicit rules, Noel Yap, 2004/04/26
- Re: implicit rules, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/04/26
- Re: implicit rules, Noel Yap, 2004/04/26
- Re: implicit rules, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/04/26
- Re: implicit rules, Paul D. Smith, 2004/04/26
- Re: implicit rules, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/04/26
- Re: implicit rules, Paul D. Smith, 2004/04/26
- Re: implicit rules, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/04/26
- Re: implicit rules, Noel Yap, 2004/04/26
- Re: implicit rules, Noel Yap, 2004/04/26