This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Patch: automatic dependencies for gcc

Ralf> The reason I see against my proposal that IMVHO carries real weight
Ralf> would be if you were to require up to date deps files.  I would not know
Ralf> how to easily reformulate
Ralf>   %.o $(DEPDIR)/%.d: %.c
Ralf> rules into the subdir/$(DEPDIR) scheme.  Why aren't you using this BTW?
Ralf> It would already be a bit safer than what you currently have, even if
Ralf> you don't go all the way and make $(DEPFILES) a prerequisite of 'all'.

It seems to me that this will cause us to run these rules at -include
time.  -include will not error if the file does not exist, but if the
file can be remade, make will try to do that.

I think include time is too early to build the .d files.

Agreed. I think it's better to remake dep files as side effect of compilation (see for more info), which means that %.d will never appear in a rule.

With this sorted out, Ralf's patch at (especially if redone to use $(*D) and $(*F) instead of dir/notdir) does not seem too ugly.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]