Samium Gromoff wrote:
I think that this makecc thing would have many positive sides besides "just doing
the thing i need"---for example the most obvious benefit is that the whole mechanism suddenly becomes much more translucent and people who debug their makefiles will surely benefit from that. Second major point is that the resulting makefile is much more portable than then original---and this could be a major benefit in some corner cases.
I tend to agree with you that something that produces an equivalent, but simplified, makefile to the one being processed would be very helpful. It would be a little like the -E option on gcc. It would take the input makefiles and rewrite it so with "everything" expanded into basic elements. I have spent many an hour wondering what did make actually do to some arcane construct I had fed in.
Rather than create a different program, an option (-E?) within make would surely be more convenient.
It should be realised though that the generated makefile in any reasonably complex case would be highly dependant on the context in which make was run. This is really what eval is about - it generates makese on the fly. It would thus not necessarily be portable since context is unlikely to be the same elsewhere. However, the advantages of seeing what make really was working off once all the variables have been expanded, the evals evaluated, the calls called, and the shells whatever, would surely make this a worthwhile project.
Almost convincing myself to look at it.
Graham
_______________________________________________ Help-make mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
