Comments on: Rules with Multiple Outputs in GNU Make http://www.electric-cloud.com/blog/2009/08/04/rules-with-multiple-outputs-in-gnu-make/ This is your source for private development cloud best practices and technical tips and tricks for Electric Cloud solutions Thu, 03 May 2012 01:47:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jean http://www.electric-cloud.com/blog/2009/08/04/rules-with-multiple-outputs-in-gnu-make/#comment-56 Jean Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:22:28 +0000 http://blog.electric-cloud.com/?p=449#comment-56 Just noticed: PVM Gmake uses "+" http://pvmgmake.sourceforge.net/ Just noticed: PVM Gmake uses “+”
http://pvmgmake.sourceforge.net/

]]> By: Jean http://www.electric-cloud.com/blog/2009/08/04/rules-with-multiple-outputs-in-gnu-make/#comment-55 Jean Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:37:01 +0000 http://blog.electric-cloud.com/?p=449#comment-55 I've know too little about emake so I didn't even think that there are other "#pragma"ta. I don't think you have to be paranoid about new syntactic features in GNU make: once they're there, they ensure wide acceptance; emake should win by doing a better job with dependencies (thanks to electric fs), shouldn't it? I’ve know too little about emake so I didn’t even think that there are other “#pragma”ta. I don’t think you have to be paranoid about new syntactic features in GNU make: once they’re there, they ensure wide acceptance; emake should win by doing a better job with dependencies (thanks to electric fs), shouldn’t it?

]]> By: Eric Melski http://www.electric-cloud.com/blog/2009/08/04/rules-with-multiple-outputs-in-gnu-make/#comment-54 Eric Melski Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:56:57 +0000 http://blog.electric-cloud.com/?p=449#comment-54 @Dave: Thanks for the feedback. The nice thing about pragmas in emake is that they are interpreted as comments by vanilla GNU make, so they are simply ignored -- there's no real risk of "lock in". You could imagine using something like "#pragma multi" in conjunction with one of the solutions in the CM Crossroads article, so that with emake you get the fully correct behavior, and with gmake you get as close as possible within the constraints of the tool. @Dave: Thanks for the feedback. The nice thing about pragmas in emake is that they are interpreted as comments by vanilla GNU make, so they are simply ignored — there’s no real risk of “lock in”. You could imagine using something like “#pragma multi” in conjunction with one of the solutions in the CM Crossroads article, so that with emake you get the fully correct behavior, and with gmake you get as close as possible within the constraints of the tool.

]]> By: Eric Melski http://www.electric-cloud.com/blog/2009/08/04/rules-with-multiple-outputs-in-gnu-make/#comment-53 Eric Melski Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:52:13 +0000 http://blog.electric-cloud.com/?p=449#comment-53 @Jean: That's interesting. I didn't know that Sun make had that feature. Unfortunately I don't think that syntax would be a good choice for emake. With "#pragma multi", the makefile would remain "parse compatible" with vanilla GNU make (because the pragma is just a special comment), but with target group syntax, the plus signs would cause trouble for vanilla GNU make. @Jean: That’s interesting. I didn’t know that Sun make had that feature. Unfortunately I don’t think that syntax would be a good choice for emake. With “#pragma multi”, the makefile would remain “parse compatible” with vanilla GNU make (because the pragma is just a special comment), but with target group syntax, the plus signs would cause trouble for vanilla GNU make.

]]> By: Eric Melski http://www.electric-cloud.com/blog/2009/08/04/rules-with-multiple-outputs-in-gnu-make/#comment-52 Eric Melski Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:50:10 +0000 http://blog.electric-cloud.com/?p=449#comment-52 @Jean: I'm not really interested in improving the functionality of GNU make, because my livelihood is based on selling an alternative to it. I'm looking for new ways to make my offering more compelling in comparison to GNU make. @Jean: I’m not really interested in improving the functionality of GNU make, because my livelihood is based on selling an alternative to it. I’m looking for new ways to make my offering more compelling in comparison to GNU make.

]]> By: Jean http://www.electric-cloud.com/blog/2009/08/04/rules-with-multiple-outputs-in-gnu-make/#comment-51 Jean Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:55:26 +0000 http://blog.electric-cloud.com/?p=449#comment-51 Oh, and Sun make has "target groups" target [+ target. . . ] : http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-5165/make-1s Oh, and Sun make has “target groups”

target [+ target. . . ] :

http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-5165/make-1s

]]> By: Jean http://www.electric-cloud.com/blog/2009/08/04/rules-with-multiple-outputs-in-gnu-make/#comment-50 Jean Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:46:11 +0000 http://blog.electric-cloud.com/?p=449#comment-50 Why not proposing $(pragma ) for GNU make? Why not proposing $(pragma ) for GNU make?

]]> By: Dave http://www.electric-cloud.com/blog/2009/08/04/rules-with-multiple-outputs-in-gnu-make/#comment-49 Dave Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:52:43 +0000 http://blog.electric-cloud.com/?p=449#comment-49 We've been avoiding the use of pragmas to preserve our ability to use other makes, although we have yet to use one. We would certainly consider it. We’ve been avoiding the use of pragmas to preserve our ability to use other makes, although we have yet to use one.

We would certainly consider it.

]]>