[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Conditional recipe execution
From: |
SF Markus Elfring |
Subject: |
Re: Conditional recipe execution |
Date: |
Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:17:49 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 |
> It appears that KDevelop's "makefile" editing mode doesn't properly
> handle backslash continuations.
This tool might still have got few open issues around improved handling
of the make file syntax.
But I find that its visual feedback was appropriate for parentheses pairs
at least.
>> Do you read the shown rule example eventually in the way that its recipe
>> does not end with "…_NOTIFICATION8)'))"?
>
> The _RULE_ does end with it, because the rule includes all the recipe
> lines that appear after the target.
Thanks for your acknowledgement.
> But variable/function invocations cannot span different lines of a recipe.
> They all must be contained within the same logical line, as I mentioned
> before.
My knowledge was incomplete on this detail. I did not get the information from
the description (in the manual) for the used conditional function that it does
not support the inclusion of several logical lines so far.
I am sorry if did not pay enough attention on this aspect.
>> I find that a backslash would not be needed at this place if would like to
>> keep the "RM command" on a separate logical line.
>
> It is definitely needed. As I've said, it is not possible for a single
> variable or function reference to span multiple logical lines.
Are there any chances to lift this restriction for make functions?
> If you want to do this you have to use define/endef to create a variable
> that contains newlines, then use the variable in the recipe;
> see example below.
I hoped somehow that another level of data indirection could be avoided.
> I'm really not at all sure why you're using $(info ...) here...
The error message looked "a bit nicer" than a complaint on a shorter "if".
> it won't actually do anything if you do that.
It prints the generated recipe at least after the addition of the backslash
you recommended, doesn't it?
It seems that I had just another inappropriate expectation for the handling
of a line continuation here.
I thank you very much for this quick clarification.
Regards,
Markus
- Re: Difficulties from the combination of functions "call" and "eval", (continued)
- Re: Difficulties from the combination of functions "call" and "eval", Paul Smith, 2015/01/18
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, SF Markus Elfring, 2015/01/18
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, Paul Smith, 2015/01/18
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, SF Markus Elfring, 2015/01/19
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, SF Markus Elfring, 2015/01/23
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, Paul Smith, 2015/01/23
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, SF Markus Elfring, 2015/01/23
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, Paul Smith, 2015/01/23
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, SF Markus Elfring, 2015/01/23
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, Paul Smith, 2015/01/23
- Re: Conditional recipe execution,
SF Markus Elfring <=
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, Paul Smith, 2015/01/23
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, SF Markus Elfring, 2015/01/24
- Re: Extensions for make file parsing?, SF Markus Elfring, 2015/01/24
- Re: Challenges around the combination of functions "call" and "eval", SF Markus Elfring, 2015/01/28
- Re: Challenges around the combination of functions "call" and "eval", Paul Smith, 2015/01/28
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, SF Markus Elfring, 2015/01/31
- Re: Difficulties from the combination of functions "call" and "eval", Philip Guenther, 2015/01/18
- Re: Questionable line number in a message "missing separator"?, Paul Smith, 2015/01/18