Noel Yap wrote:
Paul D. Smith wrote:
Making it work the way you want (if I understand you correctly), where
steps 2 and 3 are performed in a loop so that the re-exec happens
immediately when each makefile is rebuilt instead of after all the
makefiles are rebuilt, is simply not the way make is desi
Ted Stern wrote:
On 20 Apr 2004 at 23:03 PDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any way to cause make to exit without error?
Hi Jim,
For this problem, I think this might work
SHELL=/bin/ksh (or bash)
target: dependency
return 1
Same as /bin/false (returns non-zero for scripts)
R
k the documentation is quite clear on this point. This
is the second paragraph in the section "How Makefiles are Remade", which
is where this entire feature is described:
Oooh ...
To this end, after reading in all makefiles, `make' will consider
each as a goal target and attempt to updat
Noel Yap wrote:
Can you state what you want to do in development process terms, rather
than makefile implementation terms, please? Maybe there's another
solution that doesn't involve extremely complicated makefiles (maybe it
doesn't even involve make ;-).
Well okay, I'll consider how much aft
assumption is incorrect and not justified by any text in the
manual. I think this is a case of reading into the docs what you
expected to find.
In fact, I think the documentation is quite clear on this point. This
is the second paragraph in the section "How Makefiles are Remade", whi
Paul D. Smith wrote:
Making it work the way you want (if I understand you correctly), where
steps 2 and 3 are performed in a loop so that the re-exec happens
immediately when each makefile is rebuilt instead of after all the
makefiles are rebuilt, is simply not the way make is designed. Trying
to
Jim wrote:
Some ideas I've toyed with - a make preprocessor... alternative makes -
cook, hmm can't think of the others off the top of my head..
I've been saying this for several years now, but one day I'll learn cook :-)
Make is good... there have been several things I've wanted that I
couldn't
Can you state what you want to do in development process terms, rather than makefile implementation terms, please? Maybe there's another solution that doesn't involve extremely complicated makefiles (maybe it doesn't even involve make ;-).
Thanks,
Noel
Jim wrote:
If there was just a way to end m
Jim wrote:
Maybe you could chalk this up to a documentation bug, it says whenever
ANY included makefile is read, it reloads, the above trace indicates
that two rules to generate makefiles were performed before reloading...
I still don't understand what the problem is; the documentation, accordin
If there was just a way to end make with the last executed make's status
(including when that make ends with success... otherwise all other
targets are processed again, but with an invalid state, since those
files which were modified were not reloaded) that would be great, and or
to force a rel
Paul D. Smith wrote:
Yes it is, if you write it correctly.
(sorry, this is such an attacking statement...)
The correct way being that a makefile includes one and only one other
makefile? I mean sure, if the documentation didn't say if ANY change,
then the make is restrated (one would assume th
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
>
That would be fine, if that even worked, that would probalby solve about
90% of the problems just by cleverly odering the includes... but, as I
started, the first attached makefile fails, and it includes 'ticks'
which if Makefile or one of the other touchable thing
%% Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
j> That would be fine, if that even worked, that would probalby solve
j> about 90% of the problems just by cleverly odering the
j> includes... but, as I started, the first attached makefile fails,
j> and it includes 'ticks' which if Makefile or one of the
Noel Yap wrote:
>
I think this only happens at the time the makefile is included. It's
infeasible to have make check whether all makefiles that it had
included, has been touched by something.
That would be fine, if that even worked, that would probalby solve about
90% of the problems just b
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
The amount of hairy code in a system stays constant :-) Although the
definition may be ugly, it's usage is pretty simple:
$(call include-makefile,my-makefile)
well yeah - but include-makefile supplies ,-include,$(m), for the $(1)
and $(2) in _include-makefile...
#
Noel Yap wrote:
Jim wrote:
Well that's an ugly thing :)
The amount of hairy code in a system stays constant :-) Although the
definition may be ugly, it's usage is pretty simple:
$(call include-makefile,my-makefile)
well yeah - but include-makefile supplies ,-include,$(m), for the $(1)
and
Noel Yap wrote:
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
okay so I extended it some... and this fails.
.PHONY:all
all: junk;
@echo $(TICKS)
include ticks2
ticks2:
@echo TICKS=a number >> ticks2
include make2
make2:
@echo junk: >>make2
@echo echo $(TICKS) >>make2
if ticks2 were really reload
Jim wrote:
Well that's an ugly thing :)
The amount of hairy code in a system stays constant :-) Although the definition may be ugly, it's usage is pretty simple:
$(call include-makefile,my-makefile)
> $(1) $(2)
within the macro will include a makefile on the fly eh? but sometime
after a
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
okay so I extended it some... and this fails.
.PHONY:all
all: junk;
@echo $(TICKS)
include ticks2
ticks2:
@echo TICKS=a number >> ticks2
include make2
make2:
@echo junk: >>make2
@echo echo $(TICKS) >>make2
if ticks2 were really reloaded then make2 wou
Noel Yap wrote:
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
This makefile works:
.PHONY: all
all: ;
include ticks
ticks:
@touch $(@)
How do you know? Sure the rule is done, it doesn't mean that ticks is
reloaded
Since we have this sort of thing in our makefiles, I'm pretty sure it
gets reloaded
Noel Yap wrote:
Jim wrote:
Hmm not sure how eval equates to include...
Since the actual end in mind is a Makefile.cache, which is the literal
expanded targets, rules nessecary to genearte the product defined by
the makefile... This must be dependant on all makefiles which may
have changed...
Jim wrote:
Hmm not sure how eval equates to include...
Since the actual end in mind is a Makefile.cache, which is the literal
expanded targets, rules nessecary to genearte the product defined by the
makefile... This must be dependant on all makefiles which may have
changed... the final result
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
This makefile works:
.PHONY: all
all: ;
include ticks
ticks:
@touch $(@)
How do you know? Sure the rule is done, it doesn't mean that ticks is
reloaded
Since we have this sort of thing in our makefiles, I'm pretty sure it gets reloaded. The above can eas
Paul D. Smith wrote:
I think Jim's example could be _MUCH_ clearer (what's with all that
TICKS and patsubst, etc.? That hardly seems necessary to show the
issue).
well yeah - I started off just with echo TICKS=$(TICKS)I > ticks
which just kept adding an I - so I got bored and made it roman numer
Noel Yap wrote:
This makefile works:
.PHONY: all
all: ;
include ticks
ticks:
@touch $(@)
How do you know? Sure the rule is done, it doesn't mean that ticks is
reloaded
Try adding to it little by little until it stops working.
Noel
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
It would help if yo
I think Jim's example could be _MUCH_ clearer (what's with all that
TICKS and patsubst, etc.? That hardly seems necessary to show the
issue).
But, if I understand correctly, what Jim wants is for make to re-invoke
itself after each makefile that it rebuilds, so that subsequent rebuilds
can take a
This makefile works:
.PHONY: all
all: ;
include ticks
ticks:
@touch $(@)
Try adding to it little by little until it stops working.
Noel
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
It would help if you can post a /minimal/ makefile that demonstrates
the problem.
right here - there is no fewer statem
Noel Yap wrote:
It would help if you can post a /minimal/ makefile that demonstrates the
problem.
right here - there is no fewer statements that can be done to make a
makefile which creates a makefile which creates a makefile (and no
that's not redunant). It was a attached - here it is done ver
It would help if you can post a /minimal/ makefile that demonstrates the problem.
Noel
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
I've done what the documentation describes many, many times. It's
always worked for me.
Which make are you using? Are you sure it's GNU make?
3.80 positive it is gnu make.
htt
Noel Yap wrote:
I've done what the documentation describes many, many times. It's
always worked for me.
Which make are you using? Are you sure it's GNU make?
3.80 positive it is gnu make.
http://make.paulandlesley.org/autodep.html provides more examples on how
to rebuild included makefiles.
I've done what the documentation describes many, many times. It's always worked for me.
Which make are you using? Are you sure it's GNU make?
http://make.paulandlesley.org/autodep.html provides more examples on how to rebuild included makefiles.
HTH,
Noel
Jim wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/softwar
http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_mono/make.html#SEC20
"After all makefiles have been checked, if any have actually been
changed, make starts with a clean slate and reads all the makefiles over
again. (It will also attempt to update each of them over again, but
normally this will not
32 matches
Mail list logo
