On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:01:02 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: > > > Groups should still be the correct way to handle this. I just pushed a > simple patch to fix them with the Lua parser - they weren't handled > correctly in a few cases (notably when using '%f' and the like). Can you > pull the latest and give it a try in the Lua parser and see if it helps? Eg: > > tup.foreach_rule('*.c', 'gcc -c %f -o %o', {'%B.o', '<objs>'}) > tup.rule('<objs>', 'gcc %<objs> -o %o', 'prog') > > Mike- Thanks for your quick patch. I'll give it a shot later tonight when I get home and have some time.
> It's a bit crude since you still use the '<objs>' notation as in the > Tupfile parser. Perhaps a more Lua-ized version would look something like: > > tup.foreach_rule(... '%B.o', output_group='objs') > > or something. Maybe Rendaw has some thoughts there :) > > As for this, I'd like to suggest that it probably deserves a topic of its own. I am going to start a separate thread for this and hopefully we can come up with an idea long-term solution. Thanks and regards, Shmuel -- -- tup-users mailing list email: [email protected] unsubscribe: [email protected] options: http://groups.google.com/group/tup-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tup-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
