[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: suggestion: new make function

From: Paul Smith
Subject: RE: suggestion: new make function
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:16:44 -0400

On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 11:03 -0700, Lawrence Ibarria wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: address@hidden [mailto:bug-make-
> > address@hidden On Behalf Of David Boyce
> > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 2:17 PM
> > To: Tim Murphy
> > Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden
> > Subject: Re: suggestion: new make function
> > 
> > I agree with Tim and with Tim's suggested API, in particular
> > "withfile". Involving the shell in something as basic and inherently
> > portable as writing to a file opens up a world of portability issues,
> > in addition to the performance and readability problems mentioned.
> > Given that some platforms (Windows) have ARG_MAX limits and have
> > adopted "command files" as the official workaround, a command line
> > generator (which is fundamentally all make does) should have the
> > native capability to create those kinds of command lines. IMHO.

My main reason for being reticent about this particular issue is it
would be nice to include some kind of @-operator capability in GNU make
which would mean you wouldn't need to write files directly yourself for
the purposes of splitting very long command lines.

However, I am not adverse to adding a new function to write to a file.
I'm not super-jazzed about the 3-argument "withfile" proposal though: I
don't like using C fopen() option strings in a make interface.  Also I
think reading from a file is something that needs a lot more thought;
probably best to split that into a separate proposal.

reply via email to

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