On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:54 PM, tom honermann <tom.honerm...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Paul, would you be opposed to a patch that implements support for static
> multiple target rules using the above syntax?
> Any particular concerns or requirements you would have?
...
> a1 (b1 b2 b3): d1
> touch -r $^ $@
>
> Note the space between 'a1' and the left parenthesis. This is required so
> that the target is not parsed as an archive member.
Hmm. SysV make has offered the desired feature with the syntax
b1 + b2 + b3: d1
touch -r $^ $@
It appears the sysV implementation doesn't let you declare multiple
groups with a single rule, but that's not a restriction of the syntax
itself. Yes, that syntax has a meaning in GNU make (treating '+' as a
target), but it's clearly not a portable name for a target. (Indeed,
plus-sign is not part of the POSIX "Portable Filename Character Set".)
The proposed syntax already has a conflicting special meaning in GNU
make (multiple archive-member target) for what would be the common
case of a single group. That is, this:
(b1 b2 b3): d1
whatever
currently means "the b1, b2, or b3 members of any archive library
depend on d1 and are updated by running 'whatever'". The fact that
it's a special syntax means that it's more likely to actually be in
use out there. How will the proposed change affect Makefiles using
that syntax?
(While I don't think the sysV syntax is *great*, I personally think
it's a better choice than overloading the meaning of parentheses.)
Philip Guenther
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
