At Tuesday 20 April 2010, Ralf Wildenhues <ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de> wrote: > * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:25:41PM CEST: > > I'm guessing this has to do with chains of inference rules not > > being detected or so. > > Yeah, the make has a .l.o rule that triggers before our .l.c and > .c.o rule chains. Do you know if this happens also with Solaris make, or is just a quirk specific to heirloom-make?
> [FROM ANOTHER MAIL] > Where can I get this heirloom-make? Is there a Debian package for > it? For the record, heirloom make is part of the Heirloom project <http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/>, which provides many unix utilities and developement tools derived from original Unix material released as Open Source by Caldera and Sun. The manpage for heirloom make is here: <http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/devtools/make.1.html> from which is appearent that it has a builtin `.l.o' rule. > [FROM ANOTHER MAIL] > I'm not bound to bother much with this issue because no user is > forced to pain herself with heirloom-make (and even Solaris make is > better). Well, I'm using heirloom-make for testing purposes only, since it seems to be the most Solaris-like make implementation easily available also on GNU/Linux. If you have a pointer to a similar make implementation without the heirloom-specific quirks, I'd be happy to use it instead. > I guess this could be worked around by adding explicit rules (at > least that's what SUSv3 recommends), maybe explicit dependencies > without rules suffice. I'm not sure we should spend time on this > old make, though. I think you're right. Maybe the best solution for the present problem would be to properly divide `silent5.test' into many, more specific tests (e.g. one for c++, one for fortran, one for lex etc.), and then skip the Lex/Yacc test(s) if a buggy make is detected. WDYT? Regards, Stefano