Hi,
The example that I'm familiar with has had to invent a way to specify
various special features without affecting make syntax - in other words
similar to the kind of problem that gmake itself faces.
I think you may see discussions about it earlier in this or other gmake
mailing lists but it's
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Tim Murphy wrote:
> There are commercial emulations of GNU make that can handle multiple
> outputs. I don't want to plug them because that might be annoying. It's
> just worth mentioning that it can be done.
>
Can you provide an example of what syntax these othe
There are commercial emulations of GNU make that can handle multiple
outputs. I don't want to plug them because that might be annoying. It's
just worth mentioning that it can be done.
Regards,
Tim
On 11 April 2013 11:14, Reinier Post wrote:
> On Thu Apr 4 16:17:58 2013, psm...@gnu.org (Paul
On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 12:14 +0200, Reinier Post wrote:
> > It's just a shorthand for writing a lot of identical rules; it does NOT
> > mean that a single invocation if the rule will generate all three
> > targets, which is what you are expecting.
>
> Incidentally: other workflow/inference language
On Thu Apr 4 16:17:58 2013, psm...@gnu.org (Paul Smith) wrote:
> This is expected behavior. A rule like:
>
> foo bar:
> @echo $@
>
> is exactly the same thing, to make, as writing:
>
> foo:
> @echo $@
> bar:
> @echo $@
>
> It's just a shorthand
On Sat Apr 6 13:37:58 2013, invalid.nore...@gnu.org (Paul D. Smith)
wrote:
> Follow-up Comment #14, bug #30381 (project make):
>
> I don't think it's correct to implement this feature using a
> command-line option. Makefiles need to be written in a certain way
> to use this feature and if they a
