From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ej1-x62f.google.com (mail-ej1-x62f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62f]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 945363858C52; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 09:10:33 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 945363858C52 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-ej1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id ml19so13699186ejb.0; Fri, 03 Feb 2023 01:10:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YTk3GCsITKq3npedsiwoRGKtNXBI0mwXK7oYyiyJZ2M=; b=eZSZlXK/tGwGER1Khnl9j6oszD5HuAn93OSUZNC5BIYchEbR0gX0+ECbJGvTmKQyhg zafyYzya+29Bgr6IlkBMRxPXOQo5mTGQOgBsMbUTNTYacdlsOTo/zpn2HQRQzg75JfFU gMxuUmnFsy20y/c1mzdQPcLDew5HY15VkoBuQt10UGWgh8GR1R02E4JkU5UtWxC4PEe+ kjh0LbeOSMM/nUerAAv6DePxWCamAzJDYdJzcldPqttNd5oYpkz5SbBNfCRuameW/ETX 97sSu/uwIwUA9DmUD0q5RmbYzo+BxydbmmM6zED5zy0iZItdveuZ+OoiVezkcb+gnxkY 84ag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=YTk3GCsITKq3npedsiwoRGKtNXBI0mwXK7oYyiyJZ2M=; b=SFRYEyZDNNJuLojZscPp/Smjt0nK65vhkvtZ/Zcq7z/HnnMxM4wZa3WQSq8O4A2CF1 Obe0wTihLKfVnxrmbRVQ+d9qHbfIyDl//ZkzUGdkwDZAz6GH5fUE1RCvC4ea8nLb0XfE ZJG88Bum3S7i19Av0/Y9zEYRXBceG93ou+t10+P+j3POkExSsdDHZ39E2+/d9LRKmwPA wLml9SZqk0AvsEBxwtBtYFFP1JIFKTPjWcu/pW4QpVn9/h8IQm3ZoreHUAo05Kk9VHYd mIg/Va9umBWRZyl28q/HEpZ3WXavU8A51slnAe6DaLpWR2H1ynDaOJdhCw/3gaXXP8kr bkZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXKWN0btJ+0z1ru/ZVGFyOpmI0C/EL0BKaw0POooCxmS1WkspsB 5O+CtNIC9yOWVMAgiwmlZYytdDwKPHOBJ84VPJc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+nsdAPbPfvnTdya/KkRO2dIl4ss+pA2W33hRxQTHBg2pU+aXyC1s71GL4vwlvo2CnD5+aTnMgFhVxiXawxQXc= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:9586:b0:88f:9c9a:828 with SMTP id r6-20020a170906958600b0088f9c9a0828mr225902ejx.190.1675415432349; Fri, 03 Feb 2023 01:10:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230125210636.2960049-1-ben.boeckel@kitware.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jonathan Wakely Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 09:10:21 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] P1689R5 support To: Andrew Pinski Cc: Ben Boeckel , gcc-patches , Jason Merrill , Nathan Sidwell , "fortran@gcc.gnu.org List" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , brad.king@kitware.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 08:58, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > On Fri, 3 Feb 2023, 04:09 Andrew Pinski via Gcc, wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 1:07 PM Ben Boeckel via Fortran >> 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.