On 07/23/2012 02:49 PM, Юрий Пухальский wrote: > > [SNIP] > >>> >>> Alas! My thing must be highly portable. I'm not sure who's guilty in >>> this case, maybe HP, >>> >> Well, their make is busted in another, more relevant way: >> >> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2011-01/msg00031.html> >> >> And the INSTALL file from Automake itself reads: >> >> HP-UX `make' updates targets which have the same time stamps as >> their prerequisites, which makes it generally unusable when shipped >> generated files such as `configure' are involved. Use GNU `make' >> instead. >> >> This behaviour of HP-UX also violates the POSIX standard. >> >> But back to your use case, the HP-UX issue at hand (not chaining suffix >> rules automatically) is shared with at least another make implementation, >> that is, Solaris XPG4 make. But I usually don't care much about that >> one, because Solaris users have other, much better make implementations >> available from their vendor (that is, CCS make and Sun Distributed >> make) which doesn't suffer from that limitation. >> Oops, I double checked, and It seems I got this wrong: Solaris CCS make and Sun Distributed make do *not* support automatic chaining of suffix rules in general :-/ They only support it if the intermediate target appears as a dependency somewhere (which luckily is enough to make our Lex/Yacc support -- which uses chains of suffix rules -- work correctly with those makes; phfew!)
>> The *BSD makes don't >> suffer from it either. As for AIX, IRIX and OSF1/Tru64, I don't have >> access to those systems, so I can't test how their make implementations >> behave. > > I have aix 5.3 and aix 6.1 here. So if you tell me how it's best to > check… > You can use this Makefile: .SUFFIXES: .u .v .w .u.v: ; cp $< $@ .v.w: ; cp $< $@ then "touch foo.u" and call "make foo.w". If the file 'foo.w' is created correctly, chaining of suffix rules is supported by the make implementation. > As far as i remember i haven't had this very problem on AIX. > >>> but probably kicking austin group for clarification is not that >>> bad idea. >>> >> It's a pretty good one indeed. Especially if you are volunteering :-) > > I've positive experience already. Ok, well, will put it to the list of > thing to do. > Thanks, Stefano
