Re: [bug #54675] avoid redundant recipe warning for identical recipes

[Brian Vandenberg]

On the one hand that might seem convenient, but that would open the
door to mistakes being introduced that you would undoubtedly want to
avoid, eg:

* accidental copy/paste
* someone else adding conflicting recipes (disabling the warning would
make this unnoticeable)

I handled 'mkdir' stuff by adding mkdir to all the recipes.  It's not
ideal but it works.

-brian
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 7:23 PM David Boyce <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> URL:
>   <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?54675>
>
>                  Summary: avoid redundant recipe warning for identical recipes
>                  Project: make
>             Submitted by: boyski
>             Submitted on: Tue 18 Sep 2018 01:23:09 AM UTC
>                 Severity: 3 - Normal
>               Item Group: Enhancement
>                   Status: None
>                  Privacy: Public
>              Assigned to: None
>              Open/Closed: Open
>          Discussion Lock: Any
>        Component Version: SCM
>         Operating System: None
>            Fixed Release: None
>            Triage Status: None
>
>     _______________________________________________________
>
> Details:
>
> I'm wondering whether it might be reasonable to skip the redundant-recipe
> warnings if the recipes are identical anyway. Test case:
>
> % cat makefile
> .PHONY: all
> all:
> foo:; touch $@
> foo:; touch $@
>
> % make
> makefile:5: warning: overriding recipe for target 'foo'
> makefile:4: warning: ignoring old recipe for target 'foo'
> make: Nothing to be done for 'all'.
>
> It looks like this might be avoidable with a strcmp in read.c around line 2113
> (in current SCM) though I'm not in a position to try it now.
>
> This comes up because I have various macros and helper makefiles which
> generate rules to create directory paths. The recipe to create a directory
> will in all cases be "mkdir $@" in my use case but when multiple macros end up
> generating identical rules these spurious warnings are still printed. Of
> course it can be programmed around but I wonder whether it's worth giving the
> warning at all here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________________
>
> Reply to this item at:
>
>   <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?54675>
>
> _______________________________________________
>   Message sent via Savannah
>   https://savannah.gnu.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-make mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make