[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: .ALIAS builtin pseudotarget
From: |
Boris Kolpackov |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: .ALIAS builtin pseudotarget |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:49:12 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
nn/6.6.5+RFC1522 |
Fabio Alemagna <address@hidden> writes:
> I've submitted some days ago a patch to Make's patch manager, which
> makes... Make support a new kind of special, builtin target, the
> .ALIAS target.
I think while this feature looks appealing at the beginning it has
limited usability. Think about this: when do we usually about
timestamp of a prerequisite? In all cases I can think of: when we
are updating real files (e.g., building `foo.o' from `foo.c' or
`libfoo.so' from `foo.o' and `bar.o'). In other words, you normally
don't care about timestamps of a prerequisite unless you are updating
a target based on this prerequisite. The central point here is that
when you care about timestamp you also want the prerequisite (i.e.,
you will use it in a command to create the target).
Now to your proposal: what you are suggesting essentially is
a timestamp but the prerequisite is hidden, there is no way you can
access it. Here is an example:
.ALIAS: alias
alias: foo.c
foo.o: alias
$(CC) -o $@ -c ???
- RFC: .ALIAS builtin pseudotarget, Fabio Alemagna, 2004/09/21
- Re: RFC: .ALIAS builtin pseudotarget, Noel Yap, 2004/09/21
- Re: RFC: .ALIAS builtin pseudotarget,
Boris Kolpackov <=
- Message not available
- Re: RFC: .ALIAS builtin pseudotarget, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/09/22
- Re: RFC: .ALIAS builtin pseudotarget, Fabio Alemagna, 2004/09/23
- Re: RFC: .ALIAS builtin pseudotarget, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/09/23
- Re: RFC: .ALIAS builtin pseudotarget, Fabio Alemagna, 2004/09/23
- Re: RFC: .ALIAS builtin pseudotarget, Noel Yap, 2004/09/23
- Re: RFC: .ALIAS builtin pseudotarget, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/09/23
- Re: RFC: .ALIAS builtin pseudotarget, Fabio Alemagna, 2004/09/23
- Re: RFC: .ALIAS builtin pseudotarget, Fabio Alemagna, 2004/09/23