On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Makoto MATSUSHITA wrote:
> bde> (In the above example, the targets are built concurrently and race
> bde> each other. This is bad when the `all' target wins the race. The
> bde> `obj' target runs faster, so it usually wins the race except in the
> bde> first directory (3dfx)). More .ORDER statements in *.mk are required.
>
> Thank you for giving us a details of this problem. But can we fix this
> problem with .ORDER statements? Putting ".ORDER: obj all" or alike to
> Makefile doesn't fix to me (maybe I misunderstand the usage of .ORDER
> statement)...
It didn't work for me either :-). I put it in bsd.obj.mk near the `obj'
target, with the idea that this would cover all uses of the obj target.
The problem seems to be that we both put it in the wrong place. I think
it needs to be in bsd.subdir.mk for this case and in bsd.obj.mk for most
cases.
> bde> `&&' should never be used in shell commands in makefiles, although it
> bde> may be only a bad example. This is because multiple commands are
> bde> executed in the same shell in the -j case, and `&&' gives non-simple
> bde> commands which may defeat the shell's -e setting.
>
> What should we do if we want to check the existence of a directory and
> kick one (not two or more) command after chdir to that directory? Much
> Makefiles in our FreeBSD repository employ "cd ${dir} && command" to
> do this... Should we say
>
> if [ -d ${dir} ]; then \
> (cd ${dir}; command) \
> else
> false
> fi
>
> or exist() directive of make(1) ?
Just use a semicolon instead of "&&" ("cd foo; command"). This gives
multiple single commands, and make(1) execs sh(1) with -e, so the shell
exits if any of the simple commands fails. ("simple" here is a technical
term. See sh.1.)
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
