On 5/11/21 4:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> On 2021-05-11 14:30:10 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> I'm not aware of any other case where we generate an in-tree file from a >>> vpath, which is why it feels strange. >> Yea, it is a bit odd, agreed. We don't have many generated sources >> inside the git repo (vs in the tarball). The most prominent one is >> configure, obviously... > I think this is overly cute. As a counterexample, the rules to regenerate > gram.c and similar files don't bend over backwards like that to force the > output to be in the srcdir. > > I haven't dug in the gmake manual to be sure, but I think that in a VPATH > build, $@ will refer to the file in the srcdir if the file exists there > but is out-of-date. So if you go with the straightforward use of $< and > $@, I believe it will in fact work. The only way to make it fail under > VPATH would be to do > rm path/to/srcdir/Gen_dummy_probes.pl; make Gen_dummy_probes.pl > which I think is sufficiently unlikely to not be a problem. In fact, > one could argue that building Gen_dummy_probes.pl in the VPATH dir > is exactly what the user is trying to make happen if she does this. > > In short: don't be cuter than the longstanding bison/flex rules are. > >
What will she do with it? gram.c generated in a vpath build is 100% usable where it's generated. Also. it's not a file we keep in the git repo. Not gonna fight, there's been way too much energy spent on this. I'll just do what Alvaro suggested. But I won't be surprised if some future commit is missing the perl update. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
