Am 06.09.18 um 14:56 schrieb Paul Smith:
On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 08:05 +, Tiphaine Turpin wrote:
The static pattern solution looks very nice, thanks. It seems to work
fine in the real Makefile. And there is no visible performance
impact, as far as I can tell (I'm not sure about how efficiently
On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 08:05 +, Tiphaine Turpin wrote:
> The static pattern solution looks very nice, thanks. It seems to work
> fine in the real Makefile. And there is no visible performance
> impact, as far as I can tell (I'm not sure about how efficiently
> static pattern rules are implemente
Thanks a lot for your feedback Tiphaine! Thanks for having explored what
I suggested, and great you could find a solution to your problem!
Best wishes,
Sébastien.
___
Help-make mailing list
Help-make@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-
Tiphaine
From: Help-make on
behalf of Max Gautier
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 11:03 AM
To: help-make@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Proper usage of multiple rules for the same targets
Hi.
To force the behavior you want, I think you could use a static pattern r
Hi.
To force the behavior you want, I think you could use a static pattern rule :
The syntax being as follow :
::
In your case, that would give :
foo.t: %.t: %.x
touch $@
foo.t: another_file
That achieves what you want, if I'm testing correctly.
(You'll need to have a way to have all of
Dear Tiphaine,
Sure, I understand your use case a bit better.
Yesterday I tried to hack something which failed but let me share it
anyway, just in case it inspires you or somebody else.
Imagine for each target that uses additional dependencies you could
write them in a variable like
foo_prereqs
ing $^ in their recipe.
So, there is no absolute need to use an additional rule, but I thought it was
the most natural way to proceed when I wrote it.
Best Regards,
Tiphaine
From: Sébastien Hinderer
Subject: Re: Proper usage of multiple rules for the s
Dear Tiphaine,
At the moment I can't come up with another way to solve the problem you
describe, sorry. However, would you be able to describe in more details
the context and what you are trying to achieve? Perhaps if we understand
what exactly you are trying to do we can come up with another solu
