On Mon, 2024-03-04 at 21:01 -0500, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
> A grouped targets rule like
> a.x b.x &: a.q b.q; cp a.q b.q build/
> tells make that a.x depends on a.q and b.q and b.x depends on a.q and
> b.q. Which is not "each file depends on its corresponding file".
>
> The above grouped rule is
On Mar 4, 2024 at 18:01:14, Dmitry Goncharov
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:27 PM Stephen Touset via Users list for the
> GNU implementation of make wrote:
>
> Is there a way to write a rule that expresses something closer to
>
> “each file in the build directory depends upon i
On 2024-03-04 18:01, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
> This desire to blow away that directory if build is interrupted or
> fails is against the nature of make.
> Make was created specifically to avoid blowing away a half completed build.
Obviously, not entirely. If a build recipe fails, but has produced
On Mar 5, 2024 at 10:06:44, Paul Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2024-03-04 at 21:01 -0500, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
>
> A grouped targets rule like
>>
> a.x b.x &: a.q b.q; cp a.q b.q build/
>>
> tells make that a.x depends on a.q and b.q and b.x depends on a.q and
>>
> b.q. Which is not "each file depends
Sorry all, having issues with my MUA today. This was sent unintentionally.
On Mar 5, 2024 at 10:06:44, Paul Smith wrote:
> These two formulations are not really the same: grouped targets work
> differently and can't be replaced with an expanded version. A grouped
> target:
>
> a.x b.x &: a.q b.q ;
>
> can only be emulated by something like this:
>
> a.x b.x : .sentine
