[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes
From: |
SF Markus Elfring |
Subject: |
Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes |
Date: |
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:39:24 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 |
>> Does such a feedback indicate that would like to look also into the
>> corresponding development repository?
>
> No. At least I don't have time to review an entire development environment.
Such a choice is also fine.
> If you post the set of rules responsible for creating those files
> in the previous makefile configuration we can probably tell
> you why they behave differently, if you don't understand it.
But I find that such general feedback indicates also one of the usual
challenges for handling advanced (free) software support.
Another code example might help to achieve a bit more progress
in the desired clarification of implementation details. But it could
have been reduced too much with the consequence to look at other
(unwanted) side effects.
> I didn't recognize any other requests for clarification among your comments.
This is a pity.
I hoped somehow that your trained eyes might spot more issues
from software design patterns around the mentioned details.
>> How much can make scripts help to manage (optional) programming
>> interface descriptions?
>
> Are you asking, how can a makefile represent a prerequisite which
> may be built, but is not required to be built and it's not an error
> if it cannot be built?
Yes.
> I can only assume you are referring to this pattern rule:
>
>> %.cmo: %.ml %.cmi
>> $(o_compilation) '$<' > $@
Yes.
And the original suffix rule:
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/1c4474890c065711b16c7d02089a56da5a07e13a/Makefile#L512
…
.mli.cmi:
$(OCAMLC_CMD) -c $<
…
> and you're saying that if the .cmi file cannot be created,
> that make should not consider this an error.
There are cases where this can and should happen.
I guess that this aspect affects an organisational issue.
> It is generally not possible to represent this behavior in makefile syntax.
I find this information only partly appropriate.
> The best you can do is remove the %.cmi from the pattern rule
This suggestion is only one possibility.
> and declare explicit prerequisite rules for those targets that you'd like to
> have a .cmi file prerequisite.
You referenced my approach for the conversion of a specific suffix rule
to a similar pattern rule.
The Coccinelle software can be successfully built by the published make scripts
with the effect of special limitations (and the usual remaining update
candidates).
I am trying to adjust some details there.
But I reached a point after some tweaks where I began to stumble on
unexpected error messages because of the published dependency specifications.
I wondered about them for a while. It took also another while until the handling
of optional software data was identified as a corresponding big factor
for the discussed use case.
It is a recurring topic to clarify circumstances under which something can be
really optional (or not).
The development status is evolving as usual also for the mentioned concrete
software.
Now I imagine that there is a need to decide on this design detail once more
in an automatic way. I am looking for further solutions besides the approaches
which I applied for a few subdirectories in one of my own development
repositories.
How do you think about to extend information sources like the manual section
“Generating prerequisites automatically”?
https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Automatic-Prerequisites.html
Regards,
Markus
- Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/16
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, Philip Guenther, 2017/06/17
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/17
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/18
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, Paul Smith, 2017/06/18
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/18
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, Paul Smith, 2017/06/18
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/18
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, Paul Smith, 2017/06/18
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes,
SF Markus Elfring <=
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/20
- Re: How to avoid the double execution of a make info call?, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/22
- Re: How to avoid the double execution of a make info call?, Paul Smith, 2017/06/22
- Re: How to avoid the double execution of a make info call?, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/22
- Re: How to avoid the double execution of a make info call?, Martin Dorey, 2017/06/22
- Re: How to avoid the double execution of a make info call?, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/22
- Re: How to avoid the double execution of a make info call?, Paul Smith, 2017/06/22
- Re: How to avoid the double execution of a make info call?, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/22
- Re: Improving dependency specifications in make rules?, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/28
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/27