Hello Olly, * Olly Betts wrote on Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 03:53:11AM CET: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:15:10PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Olly Betts wrote on Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 01:30:31AM CET: > > > > data.c data.h::: data.foo > > > foo data.foo > > > > Yuck. Let's better not overload `make' syntax. That would drive us > > further away from being able to copy the contents of Makefile.am into > > the output file, which is one Automake design item. > > I wasn't aware of that. It does seem to be violated by several very > useful automake features.
Which features are you thinking of that violate this but are not listed in these chapters of the manual? <http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.html#General-Operation> <http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.html#Extending> We should add them to the `Extending' chapter. Actually, I think we should add the += feature to that chapter, too. > > MULTITARGETS = elc-stamp > > elc_stamp_TARGETS = $(ELCFILES) > > elc_stamp_SOURCES = $(ELFILES) > > elc_stamp_COMMAND = \ > > for f in : $(elc_stamp_SOURCES); do \ > > test "$$f" != : || continue; \ > > touch "$${f}c"; \ > > done > > The big downside of this approach is that a multiple output rule looks > totally different to a normal make rule. That requires extra mental > effort when writing, reading, and maintaining build systems. Yes, good point. > In particular, it would be a pain to add outputs to a single output > rule, or reduce a multiple output rule to a single output one. Is that something that happens often? Cheers, Ralf
