> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Rocco Altier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Please disregard this patch. I have a ton of lib%.exp and > > similar files created currently. > > Yeah, that was one of the reasons I called it ugly :-(. I > had put in an > "rm" step to get rid of lib%.so, you could probably fix the extraneous > .exp files similarly. > If they are part of the rule, they get expanded, but if its part of the commands to run, they don't, which is where I was getting the lib%.exp from.
I have gotten them to where they will be expanded for the .exp, so that there are the multiple files correctly, instead of just the one lib%.exp. I will look at doing the same for lib%.so, etc. > Alternatively we could look at expanding Makefile.shlib to > provide %.so pattern rules directly. > If I am reading the affect on the makefiles correctly, that is basically what is happening. We get a bunch of pattern rules... From gmake -p (in contrib/spi - a multiple MODULES rule): lib%.a: %.o # commands to execute (from `../../src/Makefile.shlib', line 281): $(LINK.static) $@ $^ $(RANLIB) $@ lib%.so: lib%.a # commands to execute (from `../../src/Makefile.shlib', line 313): $(MKLDEXPORT) $< > $(subst .a,$(EXPSUFF),$<) $(COMPILER) $(LDFLAGS_SL) -o $@ $< $(LDFLAGS) $(SHLIB_LINK) -Wl,-bI:$(top_builddir)/src/backend/$(POSTGRES_IMP) -Wl,-bE:$(subst .a,$(EXPSUFF),$<) %.so: lib%.so # commands to execute (from `../../src/makefiles/pgxs.mk', line 85): rm -f $@ ln $< $@ rm -f $(shlib_major) ... (Substituted rules with autoinc later..) > My patch was more intended as proof of concept > than anything we necessarily wanted to apply as-is. > I have been trying to iron out some of the wrinkles, but over all its definitely a good place to start. Thanks, -rocco ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend