[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: include question
From: |
Dill, John |
Subject: |
RE: include question |
Date: |
Thu, 9 Dec 2004 14:26:11 -0600 |
>%% "Dill, John" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> dj> That's nice to know, but it seems a little too verbose. I'd like
> dj> to do something more to the effect of 'include $(call
> dj> guard,defs.mk)' or '$(call include_guard,defs.mk)' where guard
> dj> would do something to check the appropriate tag.
>
>include_guard = $(if $(filter $1,$(.VARIABLES)),,$1)
>
>Unfortunately there's a problem here: I think plain "include" with no
>file after it might be considered an error.
Yep, that's true. The other option is to include an empty dummy file. That
could be incorporated into the include_guard. I don't think '-' is the correct
route since I want to still have errors on bad include filenames.
>If so you'll need to use eval.
>
>You need GNU make 3.80 for this.
>
> dj> Also, can you implement something like '$(call function,defs.mk)'
> dj> which will return the text of 'include defs.mk' if that test
> dj> passes, and make will perform the include.
>
>No, but you can use eval to do it. Again you need GNU make 3.80.
>
> dj> Also, can functions be used reliably to define variables?
> dj> Something like:
>
> dj> $(call tx_include_name,defs.mk):=1
>
>Sure.
Sounds like a good reason to upgrade. I have been using 3.79.1. It appears
there is a mingw version I can use. At the moment, is 3.79.1 still pretty
widespread? I may have to support that make if it is still widely used.
Thanks,
John