On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 10:38 AM Paul Smith <psm...@gnu.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 2019-06-09 at 18:46 -0400, David A. Wheeler wrote: > > As syntactic sugar, > > I'd like to see selected special targets allowed as dependencies. > > When this happens, it's the same thing as if the target was listed > > as a dependency of the special target. E.g., you could express > > the same thing above as: > > > > all: .PHONY do-this do-that > > That's a cool idea. I can't think of any issues with it.
Just talking about Linux Makefiles, we need to duplicate phony targets anyway since phony targets are assigned to a variable 'PHONY'. For example, like this https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v5.2-rc4/Makefile#L501 (BTW, I think this idea was provided by Paul.) Besides, this might be an unrelated topic, is it a good idea to support .PHONY for pattern rules? We cannot write like this: .PHONY: %config Linux Makefiles use 'FORCE' as an alternative solution. See https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v5.2-rc4/Makefile#L556 https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v5.2-rc4/Makefile#L1419 'FORCE' is an idiom used in Linux Makefiles to run the target forcibly, but I think it is slightly different from .PHONY. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
