Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] P1689R5 support

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 08:58, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023, 04:09 Andrew Pinski via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 1:07 PM Ben Boeckel via Fortran
>> <fortran@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This patch series adds initial support for ISO C++'s [P1689R5][], a
>> > format for describing C++ module requirements and provisions based on
>> > the source code. This is required because compiling C++ with modules is
>> > not embarrassingly parallel and need to be ordered to ensure that
>> > `import some_module;` can be satisfied in time by making sure that any
>> > TU with `export import some_module;` is compiled first.
>>
>>
>> I like how folks are complaining that GCC outputs POSIX makefile
>> syntax from GCC's dependency files which are supposed to be in POSIX
>> Makefile syntax.
>> It seems like rather the build tools are people like to use are not
>> understanding POSIX makefile syntax any more rather.
>> Also I am not a fan of json, it is too verbose for no use. Maybe it is
>> time to go back to standardizing a new POSIX makefile syntax rather
>> than changing C++ here.
>
>
>
> That would take a decade or more. It's too late for POSIX 202x and the pace that POSIX agrees on makefile features is incredibly slow.

Also, name+=value is *not* POSIX make syntax today, that's an
extension. That's why the tools don't always support it.
So I don't think it's true that GCC's dependency files are in POSIX syntax.

POSIX 202x does add support for it, but it will take some time for it
to be supported everywhere.