make - Patches: patch #6204, Merge redundant variable...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
patch #6204: Merge redundant variable declarations in the Makefile example
Submitter: | Diego Biurrun <dondiego> | ||
Submitted: | Mon 17 Sep 2007 11:37:43 AM UTC | ||
Category: | None | Priority: | 5 - Normal |
Status: | Done | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | None | Open/Closed: | Closed |
Fixed Release: | None |
Jump to the original submission
Sun 18 Jul 2010 11:47:11 PM UTC, comment #6: |
Paul D. Smith <psmith> |
Fri 28 Sep 2007 08:12:27 AM UTC, comment #5: Hmm, are there no further comments or suggestions for improvements? |
Diego Biurrun <dondiego> |
Mon 17 Sep 2007 02:46:46 PM UTC, comment #4: Here is a new attempt, hopefully you will like this one better. It splits the sources by filetype and names them accordingly, not randomly 1, 2, 3. This can then be exploited to create the OBJS variable automatically. |
Diego Biurrun <dondiego> |
Mon 17 Sep 2007 01:52:44 PM UTC, comment #3: I understand what you mean and I said "I agree that [...] are not good names for variables". However as I said I think this whole section should be replaced with something that reflects more of the capabilities of, and good style using, the current GNU make (although I don't want it to be so confusing no one can understand it without pages of explanatory text, either), rather than the existing 1980's era makefile example. |
Paul D. Smith <psmith> |
Mon 17 Sep 2007 01:30:02 PM UTC, comment #2: I will try to clarify a bit more what this patch is about: Of course it can be reasonable to have multiple variables if they are being grouped together in some way. And of course it can be reasonable to combine them as shown in this way. However, this is not what is done in the example. Let us look at the code in question:
|
Diego Biurrun <dondiego> |
Mon 17 Sep 2007 12:21:14 PM UTC, comment #1: I don't necessarily agree with you. It's quite reasonable to have multiple variables if they are being grouped together in some way, such as all 3rd party sources in one, etc. It's also reasonable to combine them as shown here. I do agree that "SRC1", "SRC2", and "SRC3" are not good names for variables in that case.
|
Paul D. Smith <psmith> |
Mon 17 Sep 2007 11:37:43 AM UTC, original submission:
The Makefile example in the appendix declares three variables SRC1, SRC2 and SRC3, only to merge them into one immediately afterwards:
|
Diego Biurrun <dondiego> |
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 4 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010-07-18 | psmith | Status | None | Done | |
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2007-09-17 | dondiego | Attached File | - | Added cleanup_variable_handling_in_example.diff, #13972 | |
2007-09-17 | dondiego | Attached File | - | Added redundant_variables_in_example.diff, #13969 |
Powered by Savane 3.13-02a9.
Corresponding source code
Applied this, thanks.