On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:29:47 -0500, "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> IMHO the only correct method is to write out only the visible symbols. > >The current logic looks like this: > >1. If the symbol has been explicitly set, write it out. >2. Otherwise, if the symbol's visibility predicate is all frozen symbols and is n, > suppress it. >3. Otherwise, if an ancestor symbol is n, suppress it. >4. Otherwise write it out. > >Am I being too complicated here?
Probably. CML1 just does 3+4. 1 propagates symbols that were set at some time in the past, they get written out even when set to n. >> Also I suspect that part of the CML2 problem is inconsistent state >> about which symbols are visible or not, caused by the slightly >> different constraints of the front ends. If that is the case, the fix >> is obvious. > >The front ends all use the same rulebase, so they're deducing from the >same constraints. And they all use the same is_visible() predicate. So why do different front ends produce different output when fed identical input? _______________________________________________ kbuild-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
