Subject: [clisp-list] Curious about Makefile rules

From: Scott Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 27 11:37:09 2002

I was browsing through the Makefile generated by ./makemake to get a feel
for the build process, and i was curious if there was a reason there are rules
for every file instead of generic rules that describe (for example) how to
turn any file ending with .d into a c file (like so:)

%.c : %d
     $(COMMENT5) $< | $(ANSIDECL) | $(VARBRACE) > $*.c

(i haven't tested that, its just memory and a quick glance through the make
infomanual). Is it easier to generate rules for every file? Anyways, just
idle curiosity :o)

-Scott Williams

-- 
GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
http://www.gmx.net

---

From: Sam Steingold <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 27 13:10:20 2002

> * In message <[email-masked]>
> * On the subject of "[clisp-list] Curious about Makefile rules"
> * Sent on Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:35:56 +0100 (MET)
> * Honorable Scott Williams <[email-masked]> writes:
>
> %.c : %d

the Makefile is generated, so it is cheap to add a separate rule
per-file.
OTOH, make(1) utilities are wildly incompatible wrt such rules, so I am
pretty sure we _have_ to use explicit rules for full portability.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat7.2 GNU/Linux
Keep Jerusalem united! <http://www.onejerusalem.org/Petition.asp>
Read, think and remember! <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
If Perl is the solution, you're solving the wrong problem. - Erik Naggum

---

From: Peter Burwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri Mar 29 09:21:04 2002

> pretty sure we _have_ to use explicit rules for full portability.

We do. For example, if memory serves me, AMU (Acorn Make Utility) is
braindead and only accepts certain extensions in rules. I'm sure I could
never get it to accept a rule for .d files, among others.

Peter