On Fri, 2022-09-09 at 14:13 -0400, Paul Smith via austin-group-l at The
Open Group wrote:
> Ah OK. I don't have access to the text (as far as I know) so I
> wasn't aware that it was defined that way. Sounds good.
Oh I see the text in the minutes now. OK with me. Thanks.
On Fri, 2022-09-09 at 17:13 +0100, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at
The Open Group wrote:
> I assumed when you said "other internal macros" you weren't including
> $+ because the addition for $+ is being described by reference to $^
> and so is subject to the same exception for .WAIT.
Ah OK. I
Paul Smith wrote, on 09 Sep 2022:
>
> On Fri, 2022-09-09 at 16:02 +0100, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at
> The Open Group wrote:
> > > > $^
> > > > The $^ macro shall evaluate to the list of prerequisites
> > > > for the current target, with any duplicates (except
> > > >
On Fri, 2022-09-09 at 16:02 +0100, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at
The Open Group wrote:
> > > $^
> > > The $^ macro shall evaluate to the list of prerequisites
> > > for the current target, with any duplicates (except
> > > the first) removed. It shall be evaluated
Paul Smith wrote, on 09 Sep 2022:
>
> On Fri, 2022-09-09 at 10:19 +0100, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at
> The Open Group wrote:
> > It's intentional. I tried 'all: a b a c' with the GNU, Solaris 11.4
> > and FreeBSD implementations and they all expanded $^ (or $> for
> > FreeBSD) to 'a b c'.
Paul Smith wrote, on 09 Sep 2022:
>
> On Thu, 2022-09-08 at 17:50 -0400, Lawrence Velázquez via austin-group-
> l at The Open Group wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022, at 3:29 PM, Paul Smith via austin-group-l at The
> > Open Group wrote:
> > > I don't have visibility into the current proposed text
On Thu, 2022-09-08 at 17:50 -0400, Lawrence Velázquez via austin-group-
l at The Open Group wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022, at 3:29 PM, Paul Smith via austin-group-l at The
> Open Group wrote:
> > I don't have visibility into the current proposed text for the
> > POSIX make definition, but can
On Fri, 2022-09-09 at 10:19 +0100, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at
The Open Group wrote:
> It's intentional. I tried 'all: a b a c' with the GNU, Solaris 11.4
> and FreeBSD implementations and they all expanded $^ (or $> for
> FreeBSD) to 'a b c'. Are you suggesting that there are circumstances
Paul Smith wrote, on 08 Sep 2022:
>
> > https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=514#c5962
> > -
> > -
> > On D2.1 page 2947 line 98895, after applying bug 1520,
> > change:The $^ macro shall evaluate to the list of
> >
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022, at 3:29 PM, Paul Smith via austin-group-l at The Open
Group wrote:
> I don't have visibility into the current proposed text for the POSIX
> make definition, but can someone clarify how the .WAIT prerequisites
> are to be treated when expanding internal macros like $^, $+, $?,
On Thu, 2022-09-08 at 20:58 +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> |First, this text doesn't mention the .WAIT prerequisites that were
> |added as optional features; do we need to add text for how these
> are
>
> Optional? .WAIT:? Only to be victorious over Borisorious!
I went back through that
psm...@gnu.org wrote in
<2f4c249e139c3391ae56f0027cde10df76292bfa.ca...@gnu.org>:
|On Thu, 2022-09-08 at 15:53 +, Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-
|group-l at The Open Group wrote:
|> (0005962) geoffclare (manager) - 2022-09-08 15:53
|>
On Thu, 2022-09-08 at 15:53 +, Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-
group-l at The Open Group wrote:
> (0005962) geoffclare (manager) - 2022-09-08 15:53
> https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=514#c5962
> -
> -
> On D2.1
13 matches
Mail list logo
