On 01/29/2010 03:42 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
On 01/29/2010 02:05 PM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius<rc040...@freenet.de>
wrote:
>> Silent make rules are harmful:
>> - Bogus defines [............]
>> typically do not show up as compiler warnings or errors.
>
> Could you please explain that?
Example: Compling a package under linux
The system that you are refering to as `Linux' is really called GNU
and was started by the GNU projet in 1984, many people don't know the
GNU project and what it does. You can help us spread that knowledge
by talking about GNU when you talk about GNU-powered software
distributions (a la GNU/Linux instead of just Linux). See
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for more details.
Please take your boring religious pedantery elsewhere - Rest assured I
know the difference and consider your remark to be inappropriate.
configure --prefix=/usr ....
...
gcc -DCONFDIR="/foo/bar" -DIRIX ...
Using silent make rules you will not notice the bogus -DCONFDIR at
compilation time.
If these macros where put into a header file, which is the usual case,
There is nothing "usual" - Actually, specifying paths via defines is
very common practice, esp. in automake (Cf. the section on locale in
automake.info; make time vs. configuration time variable expansion).
they would not been seen either. The whole argument that silent
output from make is `harmful' is really not true; very few people
actually read it and to help a user you will always want to ask for
config.log which give you all the required information; including any
compiler flags
Feel free to use silent make rules - I guarantee you, it will bite you
sooner or later.
EOT - I am not interested in continuing this thread.
Ralf
--
Registered Linux User #26
