[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNU Make Extensions
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: GNU Make Extensions |
Date: |
Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:42:59 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
Hi Bob,
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 04:04:23PM CET:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Tom Browder wrote:
>>> * Tom Browder wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:38:53AM CET:
>>>> Is it "legal" to use the "+=" operator in lieu of "\" when listing
>>>> members of a variable in Makefile.am's?
>>>
>>> Yes. In this case, an Automake extension over portable make syntax,
>>> i.e., automake will flatten the += and 'make' won't ever see it.
>
> I didn't really trust += in my own Automake makefiles since it was not
> really clear to me in what order the appending would occur and since I
> am also using Automake includes, the ordering might get changed in some
> bad way if the include order is changed. So for my makefiles I used
> additional variables with explicit concatenation, leaving nothing to
> chance.
With +=, the order is kept as you specify it. Even with conditionals in
the loop, as in
foo = a
if COND
foo += b
else
foo += c d
endif
foo += e
There used to be issues in this area, but they have been fixed for quite
some time (see NEWS if you need details).
Cheers,
Ralf
- GNU Make Extensions, Tom Browder, 2008/12/09
- Re: GNU Make Extensions, NightStrike, 2008/12/10
- Re: GNU Make Extensions, Bob Friesenhahn, 2008/12/10
- Re: GNU Make Extensions, NightStrike, 2008/12/10
- Re: GNU Make Extensions, Bob Friesenhahn, 2008/12/10
- Re: GNU Make Extensions, NightStrike, 2008/12/10
- Re: GNU Make Extensions, Bob Friesenhahn, 2008/12/10
- Re: GNU Make Extensions, Russell Shaw, 2008/12/10
- RE: GNU Make Extensions, Duft Markus, 2008/12/11
- RE: GNU Make Extensions, Duft Markus, 2008/12/11
- RE: GNU Make Extensions, Bob Friesenhahn, 2008/12/11