> -----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

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),$<)
-Wl,-bI:$(top_builddir)/src/backend/$(POSTGRES_IMP) -Wl,-bE:$(subst

%.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.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to