Re: Quirk with rules producing multiple output files

2013-04-27 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 13:41 +0200, Reinier Post wrote: > Hmm, indeed: > > | /tmp % cat Makefile > | %.1:; echo $*.1 for $@ > $@ > | %.e.1 %.f.1:; echo $*.1 for $@ > $@ > | %.c.1 %.d.1:; for f in $*.c.1 $*.d.1; do echo $$f for $@ > $$f; done > | %.ab.2: %.a.1 %.b.1; cat $+ > $@ > | %.cd.2: %.c.1 %.

Re: Quirk with rules producing multiple output files

2013-04-12 Thread Roger Pepitone
How come it only reran the rule once the second time? All three targets were invalid. On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Reinier Post wrote: > On Thu Apr 11 12:47:56 2013, psm...@gnu.org (Paul Smith) wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 12:14 +0200, Reinier Post wrote: > > > > It's just a shorthand f

Re: Quirk with rules producing multiple output files

2013-04-12 Thread Reinier Post
On Thu Apr 11 12:47:56 2013, psm...@gnu.org (Paul Smith) wrote: > 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

Re: Quirk with rules producing multiple output files

2013-04-11 Thread Tim Murphy
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

Re: Quirk with rules producing multiple output files

2013-04-11 Thread David Sankel
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

Re: Quirk with rules producing multiple output files

2013-04-11 Thread Tim Murphy
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

Re: Quirk with rules producing multiple output files

2013-04-11 Thread Paul Smith
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

Re: Quirk with rules producing multiple output files

2013-04-11 Thread Reinier Post
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

Re: Quirk with rules producing multiple output files

2013-04-04 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 21:24 -0500, Roger Pepitone wrote: > > TEST_TEXTS := test1.txt test2.txt test3.txt > $(TEST_TEXTS) : xtest.txt > echo "Rebuilding $@" > touch $(TEST_TEXTS) > xtest: $(TEST_TEXTS) > ##

Re: Quirk with rules producing multiple output files

2013-04-03 Thread Roger Pepitone
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Roger Pepitone < rogerpepitone.1...@gmail.com> wrote: > ## > > TEST_TEXTS := test1.txt test2.txt test3.txt > > $(TEST_TEXTS) : xtest.txt > echo "Rebuilding $@" > touch $(TEST_TEXTS) > > xtest: $(TEST_TEXTS) > > c