Re: [PATCH 1/2] Trivial correction on document

My native English speaker intuition says that "if it were" and "if it was" are both available there. https://english.stackexchange.com/a/146382 cites Huddleston and Pullum's grammar in agreement. Other answers suggest the "were" form is getting rarer, so maybe it's a good idea to change it, ev

[PATCH 0/2] trivial correction on doc

Feel free to massage the commit message if they are not good. Cao jin (2): Trivial correction on document Consistent variable name make less confusion doc/make.texi | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) -- 2.1.0 ___ Bug-

[PATCH 1/2] Trivial correction on document

--- doc/make.texi | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/make.texi b/doc/make.texi index dfa4454..343927b 100644 --- a/doc/make.texi +++ b/doc/make.texi @@ -1831,7 +1831,7 @@ more recent than it. @item How to update the file @file{foo.o}: by running @code{cc}

[PATCH 2/2] Consistent variable name make less confusion

In chapter 8.7 "The `call' Function" of `info make`, there is inconsistent variable name between example and description as following: This macro simply reverses its arguments: reverse = $(2) $(1) foo = $(call reverse,a,b) Here FOO wi

Re: [bug #51269] Reusing data from targets for prerequisites

On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 17:18 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > I guess that it will be noticed once more that implicit rules will work > in an other way than static pattern rules. It's important to realize that even though the unfortunate choice of naming implies otherwise, static pattern rules are

Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes

On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 14:19 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > This applies only to implicit rules, not explicit rules. > > > Can an explicit make rule also be cancelled anyhow? > > No. > > Thanks for this clarification. > > This distinction has got important consequences on how the different >

Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes

>> How much can make scripts help to manage (optional) programming >> interface descriptions? > > Are you asking, how can a makefile represent a prerequisite which may be > built, but is not required to be built and it's not an error if it > cannot be built? How do you think about the following a

Re: Unlink failure on abort

> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:42:51 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii > Cc: alex...@gmail.com, bug-make@gnu.org > > > I think the problem is that reap_children() is called after > > delete_child_targets, so the child jobs can still run > > while make is trying to delete. > > > > Maybe delete_targets sh

Re: [bug #51269] Reusing data from targets for prerequisites

>> * Can it eventually happen that dependencies will not be resolved if >> target names do not contain the percent character? > > I can't remember, but a simple experiment should answer that ! I guess that it will be noticed once more that implicit rules will work in an other way than static pa

[bug #51278] Support for the specification of special build properties together with each make rule

URL: Summary: Support for the specification of special build properties together with each make rule Project: make Submitted by: elfring Submitted on: Tue 20 Jun 2017 03:30:32 PM CEST

Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes

> This applies only to implicit rules, not explicit rules. > >> Can an explicit make rule also be cancelled anyhow? > > No. Thanks for this clarification. This distinction has got important consequences on how the different make rule types can and should be ordered relative to each other. Woul

Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes

On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 08:28 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > The wording “… override a built-in implicit rule (or one you have > defined yourself) …”might need another clarification. Does the > distinction with explicit make rules result in special consequences > here? > https://www.gnu.org/softw

Re: [bug #51269] Reusing data from targets for prerequisites

>> Would it make sense to allow that another special syntax will denote >> additional placeholders (similar to the handling of the percent character)? > > Take a look at > https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Static-Usage.html > > It may enable what you want already. This functiona

Re: [bug #51269] Reusing data from targets for prerequisites

Markus Elfring (20 June 2017 11:43) > I got another software development concern for such an use case. > > * Can it eventually happen that dependencies will not be resolved if > target names do not contain the percent character? I can't remember, but a simple experiment should answer that ! > *

Re: [bug #51269] Reusing data from targets for prerequisites

>> Would it make sense to allow that another special syntax will denote >> additional placeholders (similar to the handling of the percent character)? > > Take a look at > https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Static-Usage.html Thanks for your link. > It may enable what you want al

Re: [bug #51269] Reusing data from targets for prerequisites

Markus Elfring (19 June 2017 19:34): > The documentation contains the following information: > “… > It’s very important that you recognize the limited scope in which automatic > variable values are available: they only have values within the recipe. > …” > > How are the chances to adjust this softw