On 5/11/21 5:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 5/11/21 4:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >>> On 2021-05-11 14:30:10 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>>> I'm not aware of any other case where we generate an in-tree file from a >>>> vpath, which is why it feels strange. >>> Yea, it is a bit odd, agreed. We don't have many generated sources >>> inside the git repo (vs in the tarball). The most prominent one is >>> configure, obviously... >> I think this is overly cute. As a counterexample, the rules to regenerate >> gram.c and similar files don't bend over backwards like that to force the >> output to be in the srcdir. >> >> I haven't dug in the gmake manual to be sure, but I think that in a VPATH >> build, $@ will refer to the file in the srcdir if the file exists there >> but is out-of-date. So if you go with the straightforward use of $< and >> $@, I believe it will in fact work. The only way to make it fail under >> VPATH would be to do >> rm path/to/srcdir/Gen_dummy_probes.pl; make Gen_dummy_probes.pl >> which I think is sufficiently unlikely to not be a problem. In fact, >> one could argue that building Gen_dummy_probes.pl in the VPATH dir >> is exactly what the user is trying to make happen if she does this. >> >> In short: don't be cuter than the longstanding bison/flex rules are. >> >> > What will she do with it? gram.c generated in a vpath build is 100% > usable where it's generated. Also. it's not a file we keep in the git repo. > > Not gonna fight, there's been way too much energy spent on this. I'll > just do what Alvaro suggested. But I won't be surprised if some future > commit is missing the perl update. > >
Belay that. His patch does what I tried to do but does it right. I'll figure it out. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
