Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.std.c++ > #636

Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago

Show all headers | View raw

On 06/06/2013 02:12 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
> In article <51ACB83B.9080903@verizon.net>,
> James Kuyper  <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/01/2013 04:04 AM, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
>> ...
>>> the program with, or source for the executable tool; and then you have
>>> to provide a customized makefile for the program that includes the
>>> appropriate rule, which presumes the use of a particular make utility
>>> since they're not standardized the way the language is.
>>
>> Some make utilities are standardized; POSIX make, for instance. Of
>> course, that won't do you much good if your target platform doesn't
>> conform to POSIX, but it's not the absence of a standard that's the
>> problem; it's the fact that many systems haven't adopted it.
>
> make is probably *the* example tool that's standardized in such a fuzzy
> way as to be interpreted any which way.
>
> POSIX talks about parallel makes, but does not define all that much.
>
> POSIX talks about % being "reserved", but does not describe the corresponding
> suffix rules.
>
> A lot of fairly common, and almost universal extensions, are not standardized,
> the most prominent being VPATH and .PHONY...
>
> I suspect there are almost no posix-compliant makes out there. Not fully.
> They all come with some extensions, and they all forego some part of the
> current POSIX standard.

GNU make has many extensions, but extensions can be done in a conforming
way - I know this is true for the C standard; I think it's true for
POSIX, too. The GNU Make Manual claims, without qualification, that "GNU
make conforms to section 6.2 of IEEE Standard 1003.2-1992 (POSIX.2)." Do
you know for certain that this is not the case? If so, could you
identify the nature of the non-conformance?
-- 
James Kuyper


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try posting with your ]
[ newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-cpp-submit@vandevoorde.com ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]

Back to comp.std.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-05-23 19:18 -0600
  Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-05-24 15:19 -0700
  Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2013-05-25 02:23 -0700
  Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-05-25 02:24 -0700
    Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago "Kenneth \"Bessarion\" Boyd" <zaimoni@zaimoni.com> - 2013-05-25 23:43 -0700
    Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-05-25 23:44 -0700
      Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago Francis Glassborow <francis.glassborow@btinternet.com> - 2013-05-26 08:52 -0600
  Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@googlemail.com> - 2013-05-25 23:43 -0700
  Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago Peter <pcurran88@googlemail.com> - 2013-05-30 19:40 -0600
    Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-06-01 02:04 -0600
      Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago ootiib@hot.ee - 2013-06-01 14:53 -0600
      Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-06-04 10:41 -0600
        Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago espie@lain.home (Marc Espie) - 2013-06-05 23:12 -0700
          Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-06-06 09:20 -0700
  Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2013-06-09 02:21 -0700

csiph-web