Follow-up Comment #1, bug #60077 (project make):

I'm not too jazzed about the idea of $@ working differently for explicit vs.
pattern rule grouped targets.  I agree that the "instigating target" may not
be so useful, but if we change $@ to be a deterministic target then there's NO
way to obtain the instigating target: that information is lost.

What I would prefer is to leave $@ as it is and implement a new variable
containing the list of all grouped targets ($& seems like a good choice to me,
or else we could use something like $(@^) which would kind of be like $^ but
for targets) for both explicit AND pattern rules, then users can either use
$(firstword $&) to obtain the deterministic target or we could introduce a new
special variable like $(@<) or something which was basically the same thing.


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via Savannah

Reply via email to