On 08/11/2012 11:49 AM, Tim Murphy wrote:
> For the sake of understanding you properly, if you can detect, remove and
> add targets then 'replacing the recipe silently' is just these three
> operations in sequence, right?
>
No. A target might be defined, but might have or not have an associated
re
For the sake of understanding you properly, if you can detect, remove and
add targets then 'replacing the recipe silently' is just these three
operations in sequence, right? We can already add targets but not the
other two.
Cheers,
Tim
On Aug 11, 2012 10:53 AM, "Stefano Lattarini"
wrote:
> On
On 08/11/2012 07:36 AM, Tim Murphy wrote:
> This is a different thing but I'd have had great use for a way to tell if a
> target had been defined previously. Had to use variables to do it which
> used a lot of memory and it was a total waste because make has the
> information already.
>
I dimly rem
This is a different thing but I'd have had great use for a way to tell if a
target had been defined previously. Had to use variables to do it which
used a lot of memory and it was a total waste because make has the
information already.
Perhaps the ability to detect if a target is defined and anoth
On 08/11/2012 01:27 AM, David Boyce wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Stefano Lattarini
> wrote:
>> I have no answer for that, lacking any knowledge about GNU make
>> internals; I guess the make developers here will be in a better
>> position to answer my question.
>
> Yes, and I hope you
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> I have no answer for that, lacking any knowledge about GNU make
> internals; I guess the make developers here will be in a better
> position to answer my question.
Yes, and I hope you get your feature. But consider that auto-tools are
tr
Hi David, thanks for the feedback.
On 08/10/2012 07:00 PM, David Boyce wrote:
> Even with GNU make as it stands, couldn't you emit your rules in the
> form of variables, override them at will, and eval() them at the end?
> E.g.
>
> define ruleA
> version 1
> endef
>
> then later...
>
> define r
Even with GNU make as it stands, couldn't you emit your rules in the
form of variables, override them at will, and eval() them at the end?
E.g.
define ruleA
version 1
endef
then later...
define ruleA
version 2
endef
$(eval $(call ruleA,...))
-David Boyce
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Stef
In some situations, it would be very useful to be able to override
already-defined rules for a target without having GNU make complaining
about the override.
For example, when writing a "library" of makefiles recipes, organized as
a set of makefile fragments to be included by a "master" (user-writ
