Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes

> Your claim was that either explicit rules should come before implicit rules > or vice versa. You are more free with your choices for placement of explicit rules in make scripts (because you can not and will therefore not cancel them). You should be careful then which of your explicit rules

[bug #49844] 'make -j' without explicit process count sometimes doesn't parallelize

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #49844 (project make): Hello. There is a bug in your trivial example: 1) 'seq 1000 | xargs -n1000 make -j5' expands to 'make -j5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...' and 2) 'seq 1000 | xargs -n1000 make -j' expands to 'make -j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...' As we can see, in second example

Re: Error while running make command

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:48:57 +0530 "PARIMEY DNYANESHWAR PATIL 4-Yr B.Tech. Electrical Engg." wrote: > I am getting this error after running above command in Ubuntu 16.04 lts. > Please tell me what to do to solve? You need to carefully read the instructions that

Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes

> I don't think that's relevant: a graph's topology isn't dependent > on the order in which its arcs are enumerated. I have tried to stress the construction sequence. > When you submit a test case that demonstrates a bug, I stumbled on two special cases depending on your view of the

[bug #51286] Support for additional local make variables

URL: Summary: Support for additional local make variables Project: make Submitted by: elfring Submitted on: Wed 21 Jun 2017 07:00:14 PM CEST Severity: 3 - Normal Item

RE: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes

>> I don't see why it makes a difference in how rule types should be ordered > A dependency graph is constructed by make scripts. I don't think that's relevant: a graph's topology isn't dependent on the order in which its arcs are enumerated. >> Only if an explicit rule does not exist will an

Error while running make command

[image: Inline image 1] I am getting this error after running above command in Ubuntu 16.04 lts. Please tell me what to do to solve? ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #51269] Reusing data from targets for prerequisites

> It's important to realize that even though the unfortunate choice of > naming implies otherwise, static pattern rules are in all ways > _explicit_ rules. They are not and should never be considered > implicit rules. Thanks for your explanation. This terminology can occasionally trigger

Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes

> I don't see why it makes a difference in how rule types should be ordered A dependency graph is constructed by make scripts. > (I assume that by "ordered" you mean which rules are defined > first in the makefile). Yes. The possibility is supported to cancel implicit rules (which refer to

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Trivial correction on document

On 06/21/2017 03:56 PM, Tim Murphy wrote: > "that that" seems correct to me in this case and removing it incorrect. > There is a presumption and a conclusion and the sentence emphasises that > the conclusion is still presumed. > My feeling is, If we are orally saying the sentence, we may

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Trivial correction on document

On 06/21/2017 01:38 PM, Martin Dorey wrote: > My native English speaker intuition says that "if it were" and "if it > was" are both available there. > https://english.stackexchange.com/a/146382 cites Huddleston and > Pullum's grammar in agreement. Other answers suggest the "were" form is >