You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
First, thanks for sharing your work. And good job as for code clarity: it's very readable in spite of make syntax not being that easy.
That said, I think that there is a design flaw: the targets do not depend on the submakefiles.
In your test-app, if I run make (to build all), and then I change something in one of the .mk files (say a -O0 in -O2), the next call to make outputs "nothing to be done" instead of rebuilding everything impacted by the option change.
I tried fixing it by introducing the name of the submakefile as fourth parameter to ADD_TARGET_RULE macro in order to add it to the dependencies, but I didn't succeed.
Can you fix that or suggest another way to come to the expected behaviour ?
Regards,
Michael
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi there.
First, thanks for sharing your work. And good job as for code clarity: it's very readable in spite of make syntax not being that easy.
That said, I think that there is a design flaw: the targets do not depend on the submakefiles.
In your test-app, if I run make (to build all), and then I change something in one of the .mk files (say a -O0 in -O2), the next call to make outputs "nothing to be done" instead of rebuilding everything impacted by the option change.
I tried fixing it by introducing the name of the submakefile as fourth parameter to ADD_TARGET_RULE macro in order to add it to the dependencies, but I didn't succeed.
Can you fix that or suggest another way to come to the expected behaviour ?
Regards,
Michael
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: