[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: extending automake
From: |
Brian Dessent |
Subject: |
Re: extending automake |
Date: |
Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:42:57 -0700 |
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Well, this scheme can easily be generalized to one stamp file per set of
> output files, no? And then it parallelizes well, too.
Yes, I suppose if you named the stamp with a filename derivable from
that of the .xml filename you could generalize this without having to
write 'n' copies of the rule. That would be a better way.
That brings up the next logical point, can anyone comment on the
feasibility of some kind of generalized "tool X reads A and outputs Y
and Z" construct to help solve the "tools generating multiple outputs"
case without having to emit big ugly stamp rules in Makefile.am or
resorting the GNUmake-isms?
Brian
- extending automake, Bob Rossi, 2008/04/18
- Re: extending automake, Brian Dessent, 2008/04/19
- Re: extending automake, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/19
- Re: extending automake,
Brian Dessent <=
- Re: extending automake, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/19
- Re: extending automake, Brian Dessent, 2008/04/19
- Re: extending automake, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/19
- Re: extending automake, Brian Dessent, 2008/04/19
- Re: extending automake, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/19
- Re: extending automake, Bob Rossi, 2008/04/19
- Re: extending automake, Bob Friesenhahn, 2008/04/19
- Re: extending automake, Bob Rossi, 2008/04/24
- Re: extending automake, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/25
- Re: extending automake, Bob Rossi, 2008/04/25