From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Confused about gram.y referencs in Makefile? |
Date: | 2023-09-25 15:29:54 |
Message-ID: | 18971.1695655794@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
> On 25 Sep 2023, at 05:34, Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> How about "See gram.h target's comment in src/backend/parser/Makefile"
>> or just "See src/backend/parser/Makefile"?
> The latter seems more stable, if the Makefile is ever restructured it's almost
> guaranteed that this comment will be missed with the location info becoming
> stale.
I did it like this:
# Note that while each script call produces two output files, to be
-# parallel-make safe we need to split this into two rules. (See for
-# example gram.y for more explanation.)
+# parallel-make safe we need to split this into two rules. (See notes
+# in src/backend/parser/Makefile about rules with multiple outputs.)
#
There are a whole lot of other cross-references to that same comment,
and they all look like
# See notes in src/backend/parser/Makefile about the following two rules
I considered modifying all of those as well, but decided it wasn't
really worth the trouble. The Makefiles' days are numbered I think.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-09-25 15:30:07 | Re: CREATE FUNCTION ... SEARCH { DEFAULT | SYSTEM | SESSION } |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2023-09-25 15:19:12 | Re: Remove MSVC scripts from the tree |