[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: builddir vs. srcdir
From: |
Stepan Kasal |
Subject: |
Re: builddir vs. srcdir |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:25:37 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:21:35PM +0200, Paul Pogonyshev wrote:
> > And I'd like to suggest that you use SUFFIXES to handle the .list
> > source. Please look at the following example:
>
> Well, my generator is even more non-standard, since I need to pass an
> additional command-line parameter sometimes. So, `SUFFIXES' are not an
> option, although I agree it would have been nicer to use them.
well, in the example I cited, I had several .list sources, but only one
in each directory. Thus I was able to have different rules in different
directories.
This is not usable for you, but you can make the .list.h rule general:
$(PARSE) `case "$*" in *this.list) echo "this options";; \
*that.list) echo "that opt";; *) echo "default opt";;esac` $<
($* is substituted by make)
Or you can place the options at the first line of the .list source
and grep for them.
And if your generator creates *.c file after *.h file, you should
define the dependency:
foo.c: foo.h
and vice versa if the generator creates .h after .c.
That will make make happy and you won't observe repeated re-generation
of the .c file.
HTH,
Stepan Kasal
- builddir vs. srcdir, Paul Pogonyshev, 2005/03/09
- Re: builddir vs. srcdir, Stepan Kasal, 2005/03/09
- Re: builddir vs. srcdir, Paul Pogonyshev, 2005/03/09
- Re: builddir vs. srcdir,
Stepan Kasal <=
- Re: builddir vs. srcdir, Paul Pogonyshev, 2005/03/10
- Re: builddir vs. srcdir, Stepan Kasal, 2005/03/11
- Re: builddir vs. srcdir, Paul Pogonyshev, 2005/03/12
- Re: builddir vs. srcdir, Stepan Kasal, 2005/03/16
- Re: builddir vs. srcdir, Paul Pogonyshev, 2005/03/18
- Re: builddir vs. srcdir, Stepan Kasal, 2005/03/21
Re: builddir vs. srcdir, Harald Dunkel, 2005/03/10