bug-make
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: fatal errors for missing include files.


From: Boris Kolpackov
Subject: Re: fatal errors for missing include files.
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:12:02 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6i

Paul D. Smith <address@hidden> writes:
 
> If it is a bug then what you say is true, but I have never termed it a
> bug.  It was a design decision taken between two alternative
> implementations, and the code is operating the way it was designed and
> intended to work.

I don't believe you ever intended for out-of-date makefile to trigger
failure when it could be rebuilt and succeed. It is like if a C compiler
would still report errors that you've just fixed refusing to compile your
code. 


> The design is perhaps not the one you would choose or would prefer, but
> that does not make it a bug.

This way we can call any bug in concept a design feature.

 
>   bk> What would be nice is to have another flavor of include that would
>   bk> be rebuilt sequentially without re-executing make. I.e., every
>   bk> time make encounters such include directive it tries to rebuild
>   bk> the makefile and then reads it in.
> 
> This is also quite confusing.  At no time during the current make
> processing does it jump out from the middle of the parser phase and into
> the rule execution phase.

I never said it would be easy ;-).


> Not only that but the behavior would be quite
> surprising to people who are familiar with make, since no rules or
> variables that were defined after the include directive could be used
> during the rebuild of the included makefile.

I think it is no more surprising that to find make code failing because
included makefile that can be built is missing.

Also I am not proposing changing current schema - I think it can be quite
useful sometimes. I am suggesting addition of another include directive
flavor that would be well documented along with all implications (like
the ones you just mentioned).

But I guess it will stay just a proposal like many others before it...

-boris

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


reply via email to

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