On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 08:58, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > On Fri, 3 Feb 2023, 04:09 Andrew Pinski via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 1:07 PM Ben Boeckel via Fortran >> <fort...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > This patch series adds initial support for ISO C++'s [P1689R5][], a >> > format for describing C++ module requirements and provisions based on >> > the source code. This is required because compiling C++ with modules is >> > not embarrassingly parallel and need to be ordered to ensure that >> > `import some_module;` can be satisfied in time by making sure that any >> > TU with `export import some_module;` is compiled first. >> >> >> I like how folks are complaining that GCC outputs POSIX makefile >> syntax from GCC's dependency files which are supposed to be in POSIX >> Makefile syntax. >> It seems like rather the build tools are people like to use are not >> understanding POSIX makefile syntax any more rather. >> Also I am not a fan of json, it is too verbose for no use. Maybe it is >> time to go back to standardizing a new POSIX makefile syntax rather >> than changing C++ here. > > > > That would take a decade or more. It's too late for POSIX 202x and the pace > that POSIX agrees on makefile features is incredibly slow.
Also, name+=value is *not* POSIX make syntax today, that's an extension. That's why the tools don't always support it. So I don't think it's true that GCC's dependency files are in POSIX syntax. POSIX 202x does add support for it, but it will take some time for it to be supported everywhere.
