On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:24 AM Pete Dietl wrote:
>
> Speaking of
>
> > return value of a call to $(shell) is available in $(.SHELLSTATUS).
>
> I think it would be a nice addition to have some global setting where
> any failed $(shell )
> command automatically fails Make.
Agreed. I have a coupl
On Mon, 18 May 2020, Paul Smith wrote:
This is also an objection against $(eq) and $(not), which are hidden
behind the EXPERIMENTAL compilation flag.
It doesn't matter what the output is, IMO. Boolean expressions in GNU
make are quite trivial: empty string is false, anything else is true.
So
On Mon, 2020-05-18 at 16:01 -0500, Pete Dietl wrote:
> I concur that string handling and comparison should be considered in
> a separate discussion.
>
> So let’s consider just integer comparison and arithmetic here?
The usual method is someone makes a concrete proposal (say, something
on the same
I concur that string handling and comparison should be considered in a
separate discussion.
So let’s consider just integer comparison and arithmetic here?
On Mon, 2020-05-18 at 20:04 +, Tim Murphy wrote:
> Re comparing strings: we already have ifeq and what I have often
> wanted is to have a function equivalent so I can use it in
> expressions. As bad as ifeq may be from the point of view of locale
> this need be no better to be an improvement ov
Re comparing strings: we already have ifeq and what I have often wanted is
to have a function equivalent so I can use it in expressions. As bad as
ifeq may be from the point of view of locale this need be no better to be
an improvement over the unpleasant hacks I've had to use to get the same
effec
On Mon, 2020-05-18 at 21:05 +0200, Jouke Witteveen wrote:
> Otherwise, POSIX prescribes an expr command, so with:
> expr = $(shell expr '$1')
> you can already do $(call expr,2 * 3 + 5).
Please remember not every user of GNU make has access to a POSIX
environment.
I'm not suggesting we re-impleme
On Mon, 2020-05-18 at 21:05 +0200, Jouke Witteveen wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 8:50 PM Paul Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 16:32 -0500, Pete Dietl wrote:
> > > I would like to know your thoughts about adding something like
> > > $(expr
> > > ) to evaluate integer expressions and
$(shell) causes severe parse performance problems in large makefiles unless
you use it extremely sparingly.
[insert strong expression of frustration at make's deficiencies being
treated as blessed] :-)
Regards,
Tim
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 19:18, Pete Dietl wrote:
> > Each of these has an ob
Also, I think an advantage of an $(expr) command is that we can have
it return an empty string on false,
whereas with shell we have to transform the output conditionally based
on whether we are performing arithmetic
or comparison...
Speaking of
> return value of a call to $(shell) is available in $(.SHELLSTATUS).
I think it would be a nice addition to have some global setting where
any failed $(shell )
command automatically fails Make.
> Each of these has an obvious 'output', which is not the case for
> something like a comparison operator. This is also an objection
> against $(eq) and $(not), which are hidden behind the EXPERIMENTAL
> compilation flag.
I think the convection is that an empty string is false while a
non-empty st
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 8:50 PM Paul Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 16:32 -0500, Pete Dietl wrote:
> > I would like to know your thoughts about adding something like $(expr
> > ) to evaluate integer expressions and comparisons.
>
> I have no problem with some basic math facilities. We alr
Yes
On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 16:32 -0500, Pete Dietl wrote:
> I would like to know your thoughts about adding something like $(expr
> ) to evaluate integer expressions and comparisons.
I have no problem with some basic math facilities. We already have
functions like $(word ...), $(words ...), and $(word
Yeah I was thinking something like:
VERSION := 1.3.0
OLD_VERSION := 1.2.0
EMPTY :=
SPACE := $(EMPTY) $(EMPTY)
ver_is_less_than = $(strip \
$(let \
( \
(major1 $(word 1,$(subst .,$(SPACE),$1))) \
(minor1 $(word 2, ...)) ... \
) \
$(if $(expr
I have often wanted to auto generate targets with progressive numbers to
ensure uniqueness or count the number of times a particular macro is used
and most especially to compare two numbers to see if they are numerically
greater, less or equal.
Example: generating rules from potentially very long
> It should not be necessary for the use-cases of make
I assert that arithmetic functionality does have use-cases in Make.
Beyond building, I use Make for packaging my software and running tests.
I often find that it would be useful to perform version comparisons
and other simple packaging things.
On Mon, 2020-05-18 at 11:54 -0500, Pete Dietl wrote:
> Any suggestions?
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:05 PM Pete Dietl
> wrote:
> > I am new to using mailing lists in general and I want to use it
> > properly. Is there is a document somewhere that explains the
> > conventions of using it.
There
Any suggestions?
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:05 PM Pete Dietl wrote:
> I am new to using mailing lists in general and I want to use it properly.
> Is there is a document somewhere that explains the conventions of using it.
> Like how conversations are grouped together and what context I should
> p
20 matches
Mail list logo
