Re: Mixing grouped explicit targets rule with static pattern rule

[Nithish Chandran]

Hi Paul,

Please allow me to respond. We're using static pattern rule to create object 
files and were concerned about the situation discussed 
here<http://make.mad-scientist.net/papers/advanced-auto-dependency-generation/#unusual>
 , where .d files could be corrupted if the build is killed at the wrong moment 
since make is not aware that it is creating .d files in the recipe and would 
not delete it when the build is killed. While there is a solution for this 
problem, we wanted to investigate options as well, that's when we came across 
grouped targets. Letting make know about the .d file being generated in the 
recipe would prompt it to delete the targets (.o and .d) if the build is killed 
during recipe execution.

We were able to use normal pattern rules along with grouped targets, we're not 
sure if it is good idea to expand the scope of creating the object files since 
we don't want to create any files that we don't intend to. That is the reason 
we wanted to check if there are any plans to support combining group targets 
with static pattern rules.

Thanks,
Nithish


________________________________
From: Paul Smith <psmith@gnu.org>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 12:52 PM
To: Troy Runkel <trunkel@mathworks.com>; help-make@gnu.org <help-make@gnu.org>
Cc: Nithish Chandran <nchandra@mathworks.com>
Subject: Re: Mixing grouped explicit targets rule with static pattern rule

On Fri, 2021-03-19 at 15:53 +0000, Troy Runkel wrote:
> GNU make 4.3 added the grouped explicit targets feature.  Are there
> any plans to support combining group targets with static pattern
> rules?

I don't understand what that would mean.

The goal of a static pattern rule is defining multiple individual
explicit rules, without having to write them all out (and without using
a more complicated eval solution).

The goal of a grouped target is to create a single rule that builds all
the targets in one invocation.

What would a "static pattern grouped target" do?