Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: James Kuyper Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 09:20:26 -0700 (PDT) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 45 Sender: std-cpp-request@vandevoorde.com Approved: stephen.clamage@oracle.com Message-ID: References: <5444b5db-2bba-4b3a-a3ae-522607837c5c@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <51ACB83B.9080903@verizon.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 9xoKcRled/kLWNtD4b31tGLd9wH0BdniDqNR0P9hmtM= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: news.albasani.net yqUVaqwX3CBjzHFk/frO4ey8eQfk/XDO9+O29ppO2T+DVo5pyrEbBzX3Qqk7FlW/A294DO4Jh8Wd1BiwFTYbmA== X-Complaints-To: abuse@albasani.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 16:20:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Mailer: Perl5 Mail::Internet v2.05 X-Submission-Address: std-cpp-submit@vandevoorde.com Cancel-Lock: sha1:2ZbSXi5UuTethq1RnRRmu0QRgl4= X-Original-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 08:02:45 -0400 Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c++:636 On 06/06/2013 02:12 AM, Marc Espie wrote: > In article <51ACB83B.9080903@verizon.net>, > James Kuyper 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 ]