%% Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
hm> I think it would be cool if there was some way to write a
hm> non-pattern rule that tells Make that this particular command
hm> creates more than one file simultaneously. I.e., a multi-target
hm> rule that works like multi-target pattern rules.
Yes, it would be.
hm> Here is why I need it: I use a compiler, `mosmlc', that reads a
hm> `*.sml' source file and write a `*.uo' file with object code and a
hm> `*.ui' file with a machine-readable interface summary.
OK... I don't see why the standard pattern rules won't do the trick
here?
%.uo %.ui : %.sml
mosmlc $<
? I'm not saying that explicit multi-target commands is not desirable,
just that I don't see why you need them in this case.
hm> I have tried to think of alternatives like letting foobar.ui be
hm> the sole target of the mosmlc command and then having foobar.uo
hm> depend on foobar.ui with empty commands, or vice versa, but
hm> neither seems to get the timing right.
Generally you have to do something like this:
.foobar.temp: foobar.sml
mosmlc $<
touch $@
binary: .foobar.temp
Gross, but it usually works.
hm> [It also seems that for a pattern rule Make's ideas about whether
hm> foobar.sml "exists or ought to exist" are somehow stricter than for
hm> explicit rules. At least I have had reports that my Makefile confuse
hm> the Win32/Cygwin build of make 3.79.1 - it refuses to apply the
hm> pattern rule, but builds happily (with two compliations) when the
hm> percent sign is replaced by full stops. I suspect that some foul play
hm> with capitalization of the directory parts of the file names is
hm> involved.]
Could be. Unfortunately I know little to nothing about the changes
Cygnus has made to their version of GNU make.
hm> Have I overlooked some syntax that would allow me to do what I
hm> want, or is there an easy workaround?
No, and no.
hm> If not, would a patch that adds an explicit syntax for non-pattern
hm> many-targets-at-once rules have a chance of being considered?
Sure; this feature is definitely on the list of "really should be done".
It's probably not even all that difficult; one of the main problems will
be coming up with the right syntax to express it in the makefile.
Please run any proposed syntax past [EMAIL PROTECTED] before commencing
any serious work.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at:
http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
