[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Static multiple target rules
From: |
Edward Welbourne |
Subject: |
Re: Static multiple target rules |
Date: |
Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:45:18 +0100 |
> I've been struggling for some time now with how to write rules for
> commands that generate multiple targets
A familiar and annoying problem: make really believes in commands that
generate just one (relevant) file, and doesn't fit so well with ones
that generate several.
> The next thing to try is using a proxy or timestamp file:
>
> yacc.ts: grammar.y
> yacc -d -v $^
> touch $@
>
> y.tab.h y.tab.c y.output: yacc.ts
A quarter of an hour after reading your mail, I had a mildly perverted
idea: instead of a touch-file, use a tar-file ! The problem you point
to is when the touch file exists but the files we want don't: we need
a command for the rule that declares their dependency on it; and that
command needs to be able to generate the outputs from the fake file.
yacc.ts: grammar.y
yacc -d -v $^
tar cf $@ y.tab.h y.tab.c y.output
y.tab.h y.tab.c y.output: yacc.ts
tar xf $< -m
Note the crucial -m in the extracting tar, so that we touch the
outputs after the tar-file has been created, thereby avoiding
re-extracting every time we run make.
Not sure how well that'd work but it *looks* like it should ... and it
should generalise reasonably well. Unfortunately I can't, just yet,
see how to turn it into a pattern rule for general .y file processing,
Eddy.
- Static multiple target rules, tom honermann, 2010/03/01
- Re: Static multiple target rules,
Edward Welbourne <=
- Re: Static multiple target rules, Edward Welbourne, 2010/03/02
- RE: Static multiple target rules, Martin Dorey, 2010/03/02
- Re: Static multiple target rules, tom honermann, 2010/03/02
- Re: Static multiple target rules, Edward Welbourne, 2010/03/03
- Re: Static multiple target rules, tom honermann, 2010/03/29
- Re: Static multiple target rules, tom honermann, 2010/03/29
- Re: Static multiple target rules, Edward Welbourne, 2010/03/30
- Re: Static multiple target rules, tom honermann, 2010/03/31
- Re: Static multiple target rules, tom honermann, 2010/03/29
- Re: Static multiple target rules, Philip Guenther, 2010/03/29