Make replacement for Erlang - suggestions?
Wed Sep 18 16:29:33 CEST 2002
Luke Gorrie writes:
> I read that paper (Recursive Make Considered Harmful) a ways back and
> it didn't make much of an impression.
> I did find it a bugger to code. There appear to be some tricks,
> but they don't seem very widely known.
I hadn't seen the paper until now. It raised some interesting points,
though I'm suspicious because
- 'make' systems are a very soft target. Lots of strange rules to
make them work around all sorts of local problems makes them
- the author comes from Canberra, which is basically chock-full of
people peddling "simple" solutions to complex problems
- I can't find any advice on the WWW for "how do I actually make
An example: in the source tree for one of our products, there are at
least three different ways to turn a .c file into a .o file, depending
on whether the object code is meant to run on the target board's CPU,
the DSP or on the build system.
I currently deal with this by keeping code intended for different
compilers in different directories. In one Makefile I might have
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) -c $<
while in another I might have
$(PPC_CC) $(PPC_CFLAGS) -c $<
I can't think of a sensible way to do this in a combined makefile,
with or without include files. Maybe I've missed something obvious.
More information about the erlang-questions