[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNU Make Extensions
From: |
NightStrike |
Subject: |
Re: GNU Make Extensions |
Date: |
Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:25:58 -0500 |
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Hello Tom,
>
> * Tom Browder wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:38:53AM CET:
> > Is it "legal" to use the "+=" operator in lieu of "\" when listing
> > members of a variable in Makefile.am's?
>
> Yes. In this case, an Automake extension over portable make syntax,
> i.e., automake will flatten the += and 'make' won't ever see it.
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
>
If automake has the ability to flatten the += syntax so that
non-portable make advances can be used, why can't the same logic apply
to wildcard usage? The biggest argument against it that I've heard is
that it is a GNU-only option. However, I've suggested in the past
that it'd be great if Automake can just process the wildcard and
output the Makefile.in accordingly. It sounds like my suggestion
wasn't that wild afterall if Automake can do this currently for things
like +=.
When you have a library with 357 source files, the list in Makefile.am
becomes unwieldy.
- GNU Make Extensions, Tom Browder, 2008/12/09
- Re: GNU Make Extensions,
NightStrike <=
- Re: GNU Make Extensions, Bob Friesenhahn, 2008/12/10
- Re: GNU Make Extensions, NightStrike, 2008/12/10
- Re: GNU Make Extensions, Bob Friesenhahn, 2008/12/10
- Re: GNU Make Extensions, NightStrike, 2008/12/10
- Re: GNU Make Extensions, Bob Friesenhahn, 2008/12/10
- Re: GNU Make Extensions, Russell Shaw, 2008/12/10
- RE: GNU Make Extensions, Duft Markus, 2008/12/11
- RE: GNU Make Extensions, Duft Markus, 2008/12/11
- RE: GNU Make Extensions, Bob Friesenhahn, 2008/12/11
- Re: GNU Make Extensions, NightStrike, 2008/12/12