[bug #38945] [PATCH] Fix CRLF backslash-newline handing on non-WINDOWS32 platforms

2013-05-22 Thread Diego Biurrun
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #38945 (project make): Here's a minimal testcase to reproduce this bug. Put the following in "Makefile" (Unix or DOS linebreaks): include snippet define RULES clean:: $(RM) $(OBJS) $(OBJS:.o=.d) endef $(eval $(RULES)) Put the following in "snippet" (DOS linebr

[bug #38442] Field 'name' not cached

2013-05-22 Thread Paul D. Smith
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #38442 (project make): No, it's an internal make error. I don't see how it could be an ar issue. I'll try to repro it again. ___ Reply to this item at: __

[bug #38442] Field 'name' not cached

2013-05-22 Thread Gökçe
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #38442 (project make): Unfortunately still the same error: $ touch foo.vhd $ make-3.99.90/make cd module_timestamps && touch foo && ar rv lib foo && rm foo ar: creating lib a - foo $ make-3.99.90/make make: Nothing to be done for 'default'. make: module_timestamps/lib(fo

Re: [bug #26596] MAKEFLAGS documentation tweak

2013-05-22 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 05/22/2013 06:56 PM, Paul Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 17:42 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Hi Paul. >> >> On 05/22/2013 05:17 PM, Paul D. Smith wrote: >>> Follow-up Comment #1, bug #26596 (project make): >>> >>> Hm. I'm not sure why the immediate expansion has limited content. Is

[bug #38442] Field 'name' not cached

2013-05-22 Thread Paul D. Smith
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #38442 (project make): Can you please test with the current release candidate build and see if you still see the issue? I cannot reproduce it. ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/make/make-3.99.90.tar.gz ___ Reply to this it

Re: Documentation for the eval function

2013-05-22 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 20:13 +0200, Sascha Ziemann wrote: > Hi, > > I think the example in the documentation for the eval function is > broken. I copied the example to a file and tried it with "make clean". > The action for the clean target is "rm -f $(ALL_OBJS) $(PROGRAMS)". > The PROGRAMS variabl

Documentation for the eval function

2013-05-22 Thread Sascha Ziemann
Hi, I think the example in the documentation for the eval function is broken. I copied the example to a file and tried it with "make clean". The action for the clean target is "rm -f $(ALL_OBJS) $(PROGRAMS)". The PROGRAMS variable is set at the beginning to "server client" and the ALL_OBJS variabl

[bug #38945] [PATCH] Fix CRLF backslash-newline handing on non-WINDOWS32 platforms

2013-05-22 Thread Derek Buitenhuis
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #38945 (project make): I'm actually having a hard time making a small reproducible file... At the moment, you can easily reproduce this as: $ git clone git://git.libav.org/libav.git $ cd libav $ ./configure $ todos libavcodec/x86/Makefile $ make common.mak:65: *** missi

Re: [bug #26596] MAKEFLAGS documentation tweak

2013-05-22 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 17:42 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Hi Paul. > > On 05/22/2013 05:17 PM, Paul D. Smith wrote: > > Follow-up Comment #1, bug #26596 (project make): > > > > Hm. I'm not sure why the immediate expansion has limited content. Is there > > any purpose to this? Wouldn't it j

Re: [bug #26596] MAKEFLAGS documentation tweak

2013-05-22 Thread Stefano Lattarini
Hi Paul. On 05/22/2013 05:17 PM, Paul D. Smith wrote: > Follow-up Comment #1, bug #26596 (project make): > > Hm. I'm not sure why the immediate expansion has limited content. Is there > any purpose to this? Wouldn't it just be better to have the immediate > expansion resolve to the entire thin

[bug #38945] [PATCH] Fix CRLF backslash-newline handing on non-WINDOWS32 platforms

2013-05-22 Thread Paul D. Smith
Update of bug #38945 (project make): Triage Status:None => Need Info ___ Follow-up Comment #2: I'm trying to create a repro case for this. I've created a file on Linux and forced it to contain

[bug #26596] MAKEFLAGS documentation tweak

2013-05-22 Thread Paul D. Smith
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #26596 (project make): Hm. I'm not sure why the immediate expansion has limited content. Is there any purpose to this? Wouldn't it just be better to have the immediate expansion resolve to the entire thing? I'll have to look into it; maybe there's a good reason for do

[bug #39035] problem with blanks in continuation line in a recipe

2013-05-22 Thread anonymous
URL: Summary: problem with blanks in continuation line in a recipe Project: make Submitted by: None Submitted on: Wed 22 May 2013 08:35:08 AM UTC Severity: 3 - Normal Ite