This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc 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] |
On 24 Jun 2016 22:11, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 06/24/2016 08:46 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> what about using target-specific variables and relying on inheritance [1] ? > >>> does this work ? > >>> $(tests): CPPFLAGS += ... > >> > >> It would have to be something like: > >> > >> $(tests:%=$(objpfx)%.o): CPPFLAGS += -DTEST_NO_MALLOPT > > > > did you verify that ? target-specific variables inherit across targets. > > > > example: > > $ cat Makefile > > tests = a > > check: $(tests) > > $(tests): CPPFLAGS += FOO > > a: a.o > > a.o: > > echo $(CPPFLAGS) > > false > > > > $ make > > echo FOO > > FOO > > ... > > Oh wow. It does work (even with make 3.81). > > But how is this a good idea? It means that if a target match %.o is > built not via $(tests), but as a prerequisite of another target, the > variable is not applied (and the target is not rebuilt for the other > dependency chain, I assume). that might be the case, as well as the other way around: if a lib is rebuilt via the tests dep, it'll have that flag added. i'm ambivalent with either solution, so whichever you feel better about. > I suppose it's unlikely that developers will try to rebuild individual > .o files in subdirectories. But my, what an obscure make feature! yeah, it's bitten me in the past :). -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |