Re: Implicit make rules break test examples - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Implicit make rules break test examples
Date
Msg-id 12383.1546456071@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Implicit make rules break test examples  (Donald Dong <xdong@csumb.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
Donald Dong <xdong@csumb.edu> writes:
> I think #3 is a better choice since it's less invasive and would
> potentially avoid similar problems in the future. I think may worth
> the risks of breaking some extensions. I moved the rule to the
> Makefile.global and added  $(X) in case it's set.

Yeah, I think #3 is the best choice too.

I'm not quite sure about the $(X) addition --- it makes the output
file not agree with what gmake thinks the target is.  However, I
observe other places doing the same thing, so let's try that and
see what the buildfarm thinks.

> I also updated the order in Makefile.linux in the same patch since
> they have the same cause. I'm not sure if changes are necessary for
> other platforms, and I am not able to test it, unfortunately.

That's what we have a buildfarm for.  Pushed, we'll soon find out.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a singlesubpath
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench doc fix