Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 01:50:20 -0700 From: David Schultz <dschultz@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Per-source CFLAGS Message-ID: <20030622085020.GA61926@HAL9000.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20030622180851.K55800@gamplex.bde.org> References: <20030622005124.GA59673@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20030622114150.L54976@gamplex.bde.org> <20030622035258.GB60460@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20030622180851.K55800@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, David Schultz wrote:
> > ??? You mean we can't add a variable that will normally expand to
> > nil? This seems like a compatible change, unless you're worried
> > about someone's makefile breaking because they defined
> > CFLAGS_foo.c to mean something else.
>
> >From POSIX.1-200x-draft7.txt:
>
> % 23836 Default Rules
> % 23837 The default rules for make shall achieve results that are the same as if the following were used.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> % ...
> % 23864 SINGLE SUFFIX RULES
> % 23865 .c:
> % 23866 $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ $<
>
> This leaves little scope for modifying the default rules.
The results *are* the same with the added ${CFLAGS_$<}, with the
exception of the extra space in the argument list, and I don't
think that's what the POSIX people were thinking. Is there a
specific problem that this patch would cause for people expecting
standards-compliant make magic (other than a name conflict)?
By the way, is your only complaint that I should not be making
this modification in sys.mk? I'd be perfectly happy to remove
that part. I really only care about bsd.lib.mk at the moment, and
the rest was a hasty afterthought for completeness' sake.
To do a complete job without touching sys.mk, it looks like I would
need to duplicate a number of default rules in bsd.prog.mk, though...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030622085020.GA61926>