On Solaris 11 OpenIndiana (from 2022), aside from the 4 well-known test
failures in 'features/archives', in 64-bit mode I also see a test failure
in category 'features/output-sync', with an error message
"timeout after 10 seconds".
I don't know why only this 1 out of 3 output-sync tests (compared
On Solaris 11 OmniOS, aside from the well-known 4 features/archives failures,
I see 3 test failures in the 'features/output-sync' category. They come
with an error message "timeout after 10 seconds".
Here the logs:
- 32-bit build: makeerror-4.4.0.90-x86_64-pc-solaris2.11-thix.tar.gz
- 64-bit
The same 4 failures in features/archives ("cc: not found") also occur
on Solaris 11.4. On this platform, 'cc' does not exist in $PATH, but 'gcc'
does.
Find attached the logs.
makeerror-4.4.0.90-x86_64-pc-solaris2.11-q6is.tar.gz
Description: application/compressed-tar
On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 01:38 +0900, KO Myung-Hun wrote:
> What I meant is checking the existence of a rule for a target not a
> real file built for a target.
But how do you check for a "rule for a target"?
What if the pattern rule is "%e" not "%.exe"? That will still match of
course. Or "%xe"
Follow-up Comment #21, bug #63307 (project make):
This should be fixed in the for the 4.4.1 release; you can download and try a
pre-release of it here:
https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/make/make-4.4.0.90.tar.gz
___
Reply to this item at:
Follow-up Comment #20, bug #63307 (project make):
For reference, another failure caused by make's change in behavior:
https://listman.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2023-January/030474.html
___
Reply to this item at:
Hi/2.
Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-01-16 at 22:14 +0900, KO Myung-Hun wrote:
>>> But this does not seem like an easy thing to accomplish, at all.
>>> What if there is a "%.exe" pattern rule, not an explicit rule for
>>> "foo.exe"?
>>
>> I think, it's possible to do so by finding a target as
On Mon, 2023-01-16 at 22:14 +0900, KO Myung-Hun wrote:
> > But this does not seem like an easy thing to accomplish, at all.
> > What if there is a "%.exe" pattern rule, not an explicit rule for
> > "foo.exe"?
>
> I think, it's possible to do so by finding a target as GNU Make finds
>
Hi/2.
Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-01-16 at 00:15 +0900, KO Myung-Hun wrote:
>> Then, this patch is acceptable? Or MSYS is a special case ?
>
> I don't think this patch is a good idea. I said in my initial email:
>
>> I don't think I like this change. I understand its usefulness but in
>>
