%% "Marty Leisner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ml> Makefile.dep:
ml> $(CXX) $(CXXFLAGS) -MM *.cc > Makefile.dep
ml> -include Makefile.dep
ml> and it seems the dep rule took higher priority then -n.
ml> I was under the impression -n would be non-destructive and merely
ml> print stuff instead of creating files.
GNU make manual, section _How Makefiles are Remade_:
...
When you use the `-t' or `--touch' option (*note Instead of
Executing the Commands: Instead of Execution.), you would not want to
use an out-of-date makefile to decide which targets to touch. So the
`-t' option has no effect on updating makefiles; they are really
updated even if `-t' is specified. Likewise, `-q' (or `--question')
and `-n' (or `--just-print') do not prevent updating of makefiles,
because an out-of-date makefile would result in the wrong output for
other targets. Thus, `make -f mfile -n foo' will update `mfile', read
it in, and then print the commands to update `foo' and its prerequisites
without running them. The commands printed for `foo' will be those
specified in the updated contents of `mfile'.
...
ml> Is there a way to just show what would happen without executing
ml> (even include files?)
The only thing I can think of is to check the options in MAKEFLAGS or
similar with an ifdef, and not do the include if the "n" option was
given.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at:
http://www.gnu.org http://www.paulandlesley.org/gmake/
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
