%% "Leeuwesteijn,Joost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: l> Is there a big performance penalty when putting .SECONDEXPANSION at l> the top of my (toplevel) makefile? Probably not in my small l> project, but in general. Could it be a problem in large project? I l> suppose not because the files will be loaded to memory only once; l> it's all done in memory which shouldn't really make a big l> difference.
There is a very slight performance penalty in that when .SECONDEXPANSION is enabled make performs a second expansion pass in various places where it doesn't need to otherwise. l> Could .SECONDEXPANSION have any other unwanted side-effects I l> should worry about? If you have "normal" prerequisite files that contain "$" in the names (many Java files do this for example) then you'll have big problems enabling .SECONDEXPANSION. Otherwise, there is no issue. >> -----Original Message----- >> >> When I try to do secondary expansion, it seems to work. >> Adding a simple string to the target name: >> $(MOD1.OBJECTS) : [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> gives a make -p output of: >> OUTPUT/MOD1/mod1file2.o: OUTPUT/MOD1/mod1file2.o-fubar >> Which is OK. >> >> >> When I try to mangle the prerequisite a bit more (just a test) >> it doesn't seem to work: >> $(MOD1.OBJECTS) : $(MOD1.SOURCEDIR)/$$(notdir $$@) >> gives a make -p output of: >> OUTPUT/MOD1/mod1file1.o: MOD1/$(notdir) MOD1/$($@) >> Which is not what I expected. It sounds like you're using an older version of GNU make. The .SECONDEXPANSION feature is only available starting in GNU make 3.81. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist _______________________________________________ Help-make mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
