On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> In that way, SYNC is a feature that the makefile USER selects, or not,
> and not something the makefile AUTHOR would choose.
>
> Does that make sense?
It makes perfect sense when you put it that way and I agree wrt to
both .ONESHELL and .PARALLE
On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 13:00 -0400, David Boyce wrote:
> > The other thing I was thinking is that this feature might want to be
> > enabled via a command-line argument. All the complex makefiles
> > generated by automake, etc. for example cannot take advantage of this if
> > you have to modify ever
On 3 May 2011 17:39, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> That was exactly the scenario I had in mind when I wrote my message.
> Recursive Makefiles are the rule nowadays, at least with GNU software,
> and the top-level Makefile does little more than launch a "make all"
> job in each subdirectory. GCC or GDB
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
> I wonder if we can figure out a way to make this work better, as Eli
> asked. Can we work out a way to handle "normal" rules (rules with "+"
> or $(MAKE)) and "sub-make" rules differently, so that output from normal
> rules wasn't collected behi
> From: Paul Smith
> Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 01:33:38 -0400
>
> But, I've been playing with a makefile that I have, that builds a
> complete suite of GCC tools from scratch. I'm building them on larger
> systems with -j5 or -j10 (not much compared to what some are doing I
>
Le 3 mai 2011 à 18:04, Paul Smith a écrit :
>> I'm confused in understanding why it's rightly confused :/ But maybe
>> my confusion is, as Edward pointed out, because I am misled by the
>> term "circular dependency", as really, I can't see any here.
>
> Maybe circular is not the best term; as E
Le 3 mai 2011 à 15:03, Edward Welbourne a écrit :
Hi Edward,
Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation.
> Because there are two routes through the dependency graph from %.eps
> to %.dat, one going directly, the other going via %.pdf, make has an
> ambiguity it can't sensibly resolve (if any %.
On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 15:03 +0200, Edward Welbourne wrote:
> > It all depends on the order in which make searches the rules, which is
> > why changing things in the makefile matters. If make finds the second
> > rule first then it sees it can build foo.eps and foo.pdf from foo.dat
> > and it's all
On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 17:39 +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
> Le 2 mai 2011 à 16:07, Paul Smith a écrit :
>
> Hi Paul!
>
> > So, the circular dependency issue is because of this:
> >
> >> %.eps: %.pdf
> >>
> >> %.eps %.pdf: %.dat
> >
> > In the second rule you say that BOTH %.eps and %.pdf can be
Le 2 mai 2011 à 16:07, Paul Smith a écrit :
Hi Paul!
> So, the circular dependency issue is because of this:
>
>> %.eps: %.pdf
>>
>> %.eps %.pdf: %.dat
>
> In the second rule you say that BOTH %.eps and %.pdf can be built from
> %.dat, and in the first rule you say that %.eps can be built fro
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #32307 (project make):
Option 3 is the one that satisfies my requirements best (supporting
environments with multiple versions of make). I don't really see a different
requirement for a printed manual, but mixing 3 and 1 seems fine too.
Would you like me to do the work
On Tuesday 03 May 2011, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 09:48 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > > The other thing I was thinking is that this feature might want to be
> > > enabled via a command-line argument. All the complex makefiles
> > > generated by automake, etc. for example cann
> So, the circular dependency issue is because of this:
>
>> %.eps: %.pdf
>>
>> %.eps %.pdf: %.dat
Technically, not a circular dependency: in the directed graph of
dependencies, there is no cycle. If we ignore the directedness of
some edges, we get a cycle; but the edges *are* directed, and we m
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #32307 (project make):
A combination of alternatives 1 and 3 seems like it could work well: use
footnotes in the printed presentation, and present version information with
each feature in the online version.
Python's documentation might serve as a good example of how to
On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 09:48 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > The other thing I was thinking is that this feature might want to be
> > enabled via a command-line argument. All the complex makefiles
> > generated by automake, etc. for example cannot take advantage of this
> > if you have to modif
Hello Paul. Just my 2 cents regarding Automake ...
On Tuesday 03 May 2011, Paul Smith wrote:
>
> The other thing I was thinking is that this feature might want to be
> enabled via a command-line argument. All the complex makefiles
> generated by automake, etc. for example cannot take advantage o
16 matches
Mail list logo
