Re: patch: make lex rules parallel-safe

2017-07-05 Thread Marc Espie
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 01:25:59PM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Marc Espie wrote: > > This is a very slight deviation from posix rules, but not in spirit. My > > interpretation is that posix rules describe the intent of the make rules > > (produce a file in such a way), but

Re: patch: make lex rules parallel-safe

2017-07-05 Thread Philip Guenther
On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Marc Espie wrote: > This is a very slight deviation from posix rules, but not in spirit. My > interpretation is that posix rules describe the intent of the make rules > (produce a file in such a way), but don't really care about intermediate > names. ... > .l.c: > - ${LE

Re: patch: make lex rules parallel-safe

2017-07-05 Thread Todd C. Miller
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 14:55:00 +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > Sure thing. apart from that, okay ? OK millert@ - todd

Re: patch: make lex rules parallel-safe

2017-07-05 Thread Marc Espie
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 06:49:30AM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote: > I wonder if it would be better to use lex.${.PREFIX}.c instead of > ${.PREFIX}.lex.c. This would be more consistent with how lex's > -Pprefix flag behaves. > > It's not a big deal either way as the file is strictly temporary. > >

Re: patch: make lex rules parallel-safe

2017-07-05 Thread Todd C. Miller
I wonder if it would be better to use lex.${.PREFIX}.c instead of ${.PREFIX}.lex.c. This would be more consistent with how lex's -Pprefix flag behaves. It's not a big deal either way as the file is strictly temporary. - todd

patch: make lex rules parallel-safe

2017-07-05 Thread Marc Espie
This is a very slight deviation from posix rules, but not in spirit. My interpretation is that posix rules describe the intent of the make rules (produce a file in such a way), but don't really care about intermediate names. FreeBSD already has something like this in tree (though they use lex >$@