>>> LANG=C make --no-builtin-rules -f parsing-rule-check1.make >> make: *** No rule to make target 'ast_c.cmo', needed by 'parsing_c.cma'. >> Stop. > > I feel like this is the same question you've already asked, > and Philip already answered, before.
An other area was eventually easier to explain. > That means ast_c.cmo doesn't exist, This description is correct at the moment. > and make can't come up with a way to build it. I have got understanding difficulties for the mentioned software behaviour. > In order to build ast_c.cmo, make could create it (based on your second > pattern rule) if it can find a way to create ast_c.ml This one should be treated as an ordinary source file (for the programming language “OCaml”) and it is usable. > AND ast_c.cmi. An “i_compilation” should usually be performed for this file. > At least one of these files doesn't exist, so it can't just use this rule. I would expect that the first pattern rule should trigger the desired compilation for interface descriptions. > If it's the ast_c.ml file that doesn't exist, This file is available. > make gives up immediately since it doesn't know any way to create that file. This reaction would be fine for an ordinary source file. > If it's the ast_c.cmi file that doesn't exist, Such a file was not generated so far. > make will see if it can be created by using your first pattern rule; > that means it needs a file ast_c.mli. This could be appropriate eventually. I adjusted some make scripts in this software area because of special implementation details (or open issues). My adjustments are still incomplete in a few subdirectories. It seems then that the original make scripts could treat more interface descriptions as optional somehow. Would you like to add any more advice to this aspect? > If that file doesn't exist This is the case at the moment. I am unsure on how this status will evolve at such a place. > and make doesn't know how to build it, so make gives up, and says it > can't build ast_c.cmo because there are no valid rules that would build it. This conclusion can be reasonable to some degree. > To know which of these situations is the case you can either look at the > contents of your directory, or run make with the "-d" option I starred at these debug data already for a while. > and see which file is not able to be built. It seems that I have got still difficulties to extract desired information from such a display. I guess that a bigger source file number influences my view of the discussed software development situation in significant ways. I am curious if an other representation could make the clarification of failed dependencies a bit easier (especially for remarkable folder sizes). Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make