Garrett Cooper wrote:
On May 6, 2008, at 4:56 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 01:09 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Trying to compile ltp (ltp.sf.net) with modified makefiles and
whenever I run make as follows, it segfaults:
---
shiina:ltp-full-20080430 gcooper$ mak
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #8297 (project make):
How about adding a new special target such as '.MULTIPLE_OUTPUTS'? Usage
would be something like:
.MULTIPLE_OUTPUTS cmdparser.cpp cmdparser.h: cmdparser.y
bison -d -o cmdparser.cpp cmdparser.y
I'm working on optimizing our GNU make based build system to reduce
build times. Consider the
following dependencies with these run times for each target:
A: # 3 minutes
B: C D # 1 minutes
C: # 1 minutes
D: # 1 minutes
E: # 6 minutes
There are many vali
On 12/24/2009 2:37 AM, Tim Murphy wrote:
Personally I don't like the idea of priorities very much. Large
builds that I have done do have big targets but since we are building
5000 of the same kind of target (using a macro to define a generic
template and $eval to instantiate it for each specific
On 12/24/2009 7:16 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
You can already completely control the order in which targets are
invoked, even when using -j.
At all times, make will try to build prerequisites starting with the
first one in the prerequisite list, and continuing in order to the last
one in the list.
On 12/25/2009 4:36 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
You can already completely control the order in which targets are
invoked, even when using -j.
At all times, make will try to build prerequisites starting with the
first one in the prerequisite
. This is
driving me nuts.
___
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
--
Tom Honermann | Senior Principal Software Engineer | 503.276.2354
Oracle | PeopleTools Development
1211 SW 5th Ave, Suite
I've been struggling for some time now with how to write rules for
commands that generate multiple targets and I have so far been unable to
find an elegant solution that works reliably. I know pattern rules have
support for specifying multiple targets, but they don't seem to be
appropriate for
On 3/2/2010 2:45 AM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
I've been struggling for some time now with how to write rules for
commands that generate multiple targets
A familiar and annoying problem: make really believes in commands that
generate just one (relevant) file, and doesn't fit so well with one
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #29074 (project make):
Quoting from the make 3.81 manual:
If you want `make' to simply ignore a makefile which does not exist and
cannot be remade, with no error message, use the `-include' directive instead
of `include', like this:
-include FILENAMES...
T
On 3/18/2010 2:22 PM, Thiago C. Santini wrote:
Yeah, that was my first thought when using -j, 8 processors each one
with hyper-threading should be optimized with 16 jobs but when testing
it I got better results with 32 jobs and that was working just fine
till last week, so I just sticked to it
On 3/3/2010 2:03 AM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
Another possibility crossed my mind over-night, with which I haven't
experimented, but that seems like it theoretically should work.
Replace the touch-file with a phony rule:
yacc.ts: grammar.y
yacc -d -v $^
y.tab.h y.tab.c y.output .
On 3/29/2010 2:18 PM, tom honermann wrote:
.INTERMEDIATE: yacc.ts
all: y.tab.h y.tab.c y.output y.tab.o
clean:
rm -f y.tab.h y.tab.c y.output y.tab.o
grammar.y:
@touch $@
yacc.ts: grammar.y
@echo "Running yacc..."
On 3/2/2010 5:18 PM, tom honermann wrote:
On 3/2/2010 2:45 AM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
I've been struggling for some time now with how to write rules for
commands that generate multiple targets
A familiar and annoying problem: make really believes in commands that
generate just one (rel
On 3/30/2010 2:14 AM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
y.tab.h y.tab.c y.output: yacc.ts
I don't actually see that y.output serves any role in this; simply
remove every reference to it and your example should be clearer.
It actually does serve a roll for testing purposes. Try the following
On 3/29/2010 8:20 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:
Hmm. SysV make has offered the desired feature with the syntax
b1 + b2 + b3: d1
touch -r $^ $@
Ah, thank you! I wasn't aware of a precedent syntax for this feature.
I definitely agree with
using this syntax over what I proposed for comp
On 3/30/2010 2:08 AM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
(While I don't think the sysV syntax is *great*, I personally think
it's a better choice than overloading the meaning of parentheses.)
+1
It also avoids the problem of having to make sense of nesting, e.g.
(b1 (c1 c2)): d1
True,
On 3/31/2010 1:01 AM, tom honermann wrote:
True, but it introduces the problem of making sense of these:
+ b1 + b2 +: d1
b1 + + b2: d1
b1 + b2 b3: d1
Solaris 10 make appears to silently drop dangling and extra '+'
connectors - which is convenient
for handling macros that
On 3/30/2010 11:35 PM, tom honermann wrote:
On 3/29/2010 8:20 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:
Hmm. SysV make has offered the desired feature with the syntax
b1 + b2 + b3: d1
touch -r $^ $@
Ah, thank you! I wasn't aware of a precedent syntax for this
feature. I definitely agree
On 7/19/2010 4:01 AM, anonymous wrote:
Using Cygwin with its high process creation overhead the proposed change gave
a speedup in the high single-digit procent range.
Are you running on a 64-bit Windows OS? Cygwin's process creation on
64-bit Windows is currently ~6
times slower than on 32-b
I'm a little bit off-topic with this email, please forgive me...
I'm interested in finding some examples of proprietary software products
(ie, non-GPL licensed) that distribute a copy of GNU make (preferably a
binary, with or without changes to the GNU make source code) with the
product. If you
On 8/4/2010 11:25 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
There are free software license that are not GPL, for example the
modified BSD license. Pointing you to non-free software would be
wrong, since such software subjugates your rights as a computer user.
Ah, yes, if only the world were that simple.
On 8/4/2010 2:26 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:27 PM, tom honermann wrote:
On 8/4/2010 11:25 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
There are free software license that are not GPL, for example the
modified BSD license. Pointing you to non-free software would be
wrong
23 matches
Mail list logo
