Roumen Petrov <bugtr...@roumenpetrov.info> writes: > Hello, > > На 15.08.24 г. в 21:27 ч., Nick Bowler написа: >> On 2024-08-15 14:13, Ileana Dumitrescu wrote: >>> Printing the differences on the second run seems like a better default, >>> while keeping the option for -no-suppress for the complete log. Maybe >>> adding an informational message about -no-suppress with the diff >>> would help resolve some confusion? > > Similar topic was discussed already. > Failure in static build are exceptional. > Shared and static build should produce one and the same result. > Note that you could disable shared build and in this case result or > static build is displayed! > > I prefer do not see double output in build process i.e. is in past decades. > >
I think you're agreeing with Nick? i.e. you'd be okay with possibly some automatic diffing, but not showing the full output unconditionally? >>> However, I also wonder if the suppression should be decided by a >>> verbosity option/variable rather than a compile mode option. >> Yes, I was a bit surprised to discover that the existing --verbose >> flag which is documented in the manual to >> "Print out ... additional messages not ordinary seen by default" >> does not disable this suppression. If it did, then presumably >> automated >> build robots (at least when it comes to Automake-generated packages) >> could just build with make LIBTOOLFLAGS=--verbose and be done. > > > Models static vs shared build are not related to build process trace. > Why to output static build as in 99.9999999% cases is same as shared? > In many cases, you won't get any warnings at all, so you're not doubling up anything. I still argue it's against the principle of least surprise and in general not particularly right for a tool to suppress errors based on probability and a value judgement like this.
