Ralf Wildenhues <ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de> wrote on 2010/01/31 08:33:29: > > * Joakim Tjernlund wrote on Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 02:57:40PM CET: > > Ralf Wildenhues wrote on 2010/01/30 00:34:17: > > > First off, `make -s' is both POSIX and portable. Conceptually, `make > > > -s' has nothing to do with the `silent-rules' option that recent > > > > Exactly, and I am asking for autotools/libtool not to output > > anything that isn't a real warning/error when when -s is passed to make. > > Likely that won't happen. It is ugly and hard to detect portably from > within a make rule whether -s has been passed to make. It is so much > easier for you to just use > make >/dev/null > > for which this: > > > After all, it is custom that stderr is reserved for errors/warnings only. > > is another great argument. ;-)
Why not? What is the reason autotools feels the need to print informal msgs on the error channel? > > BTW, I often use > make >/dev/null || make > > if I don't use a build log, to see the final command verbosely. You just made my point for me. You "often use" some trickery to get what make -s was designed for. Jocke
