Eric Melski wrote: > You can work around that by having the generate_output rule > also create a file on disk named "generate_output"; then on > the second run, make will see that the file > "generate_output" is not newer than output.h or output.o, > and will not rebuild.
This is a workable solution. I can add this to the rule-writing code in my makefile generator w/o much effort. And give such files special names that make their purpose fairly self-evident. > But now you have this extra file kicking around that serves no purpose > other than to work around a deficiency in your build tool. A deficiency? I thought it would have reached (design) perfection by now. <grin> > And you need to remember to manage that file along with your other > objects -- it should get deleted by "make clean", for example. Given that a "make clean" amounts to deleting all output-directory content, this is not a problem. > And if somebody does something like "touch generate_output" in > between builds, that may mess up make's ability to detect that > output.h and output.o need to be rebuilt. Fortunately my users perform such activities only at their own risk. > Actually, a third option just occurred to me: > I'm sure this has some drawback too, but I haven't had my > morning coffee yet, so I'm not sure what that is. Well, Eric, you've already given me a perfectly adequate solution, so please take your time in vetting this 'extra-credit' one<grin> Thank you very much for your help! Jamie _______________________________________________ Help-make mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
