[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: using target-specific variables?

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: using target-specific variables?
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:21:41 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

* Stepan Kasal wrote on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 02:57:46PM CEST:
> On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 02:02:54PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Harald Dunkel wrote on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:43:51PM CEST:
> > > Anyway, if I introduce a line
> > > 
> > >   myexe: some_internal_tool_used_at_build_time
> > > 
> > > then Automake shows the same misbehaviour: It assumes that
> > > I would like to redefine the build rule for myexe.
> well, this behaviour is documented in the Automake manual,
> in node ``Extending'':
> :    Note that Automake does not make any difference between rules with
> : commands and rules that only specify dependencies.  So it is not
> : possible to append new dependencies to an `automake'-defined target
> : without redefining the entire rule.


> But Ralf said:
> > Well, that's just how `make' syntax works (portable make != GNU make).
> You mean that some make implementations don't allow you to specify extra
> dependencies in a rule with no commands (so called "separated
> dependencies")?

Nono, I did not mean that (but now that you point it out I see that I
missed the fact that his line quoted above looks differently from
before).  Harald had, in one of his previous posts, a line like this:
  target: CC=gcc3

and obviously, `CC=gcc3' was not intended to be a dependency of
`target', but some kind of syntax to change a variable esp. for the
rules of updating `target'.  *This* intended behavior is a broken

> I'm not convinced about this.  Node "( of Make"
> speaks about problems when you combine separated dependencies with so
> called "single suffix rules".  But generally, separated dependencies
> should work.

Sure.  Thanks for clarifying this point.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]