Re: GNU make troubleshooting

I just put this at the very end of top makefile: ${MAKEFILE_LIST}: ; Philip Guenther On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 12:25 PM Torbjorn SVENSSON < torbjorn.svens...@foss.st.com> wrote: > > > On 2023-07-16 15:58, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > Wow! That's a great help for debug

Re: [bug #63330] readdir() error in 4.4 on Solaris 8

Is make being built with -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 to use the large-file APIs? If not, then maybe the problem is an inode number that doesn't fit in the old 32-bit ino_t that some struct dirent's were stuck with. Check the output of "ls -l -i" (note the -i option!) to see if there's an inode number

Re: [bug #63307] make 4.4 passes ignored SIGPIPE on to children

On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 1:34 PM Dmitry Goncharov wrote: > Follow-up Comment #6, bug #63307 (project make): > > > If SIGIGN was ignored before make was started though, it should remain > ignored, even for make's children, see also >

Re: please keep up supporting AmigaOS

Well, the good news is that you have lots of volunteers to test new versions where you refactor the code to reduce the intrusiveness of the Amiga changes! "Hi, you expressed interest in GNU make continuing to support your OS; here's where you help us reduce the burden of that.&qu

Re: [PATCH] [SV 63307] Unignore SIGPIPE in spawned children

make should note whether SIGPIPE is ignored on entry and, if so, then it should leave it ignored when it invokes other programs and not unconditionally set SIGPIPE to SIGDFL. Philip Guenther On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 6:29 AM Andreas Schwab wrote: > * configure.ac: Check

Re: Implicit rule for linking multiple object files

equired. A solution which is robust to future code/design changes really requires a broad view of the dependency structure of the C++ module implementation...which is where guidance from the C++ compiler developers would *really* be useful. Good luck. Philip Guenther On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 a

Re: Goodbye to GNU make's "build.sh" ... ?

o build a new version of GNU make. Lacking a description of a case in the past where build.sh was actually the only sane option, I would go with #2. Philip Guenther

Re: sub makefile does not use correct value of CFLAGS from top make file,

already in use. Fighting the builtin rules is a bad use of your time.) Philip Guenther On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 12:58 PM Jeffrey.Fellin--- via Bug reports and discussion for GNU make wrote: > I have a project that compiles .S and .c files, and the value of CFLAGS in > the sub makefile is

Re: GNU make man page typo

nd that states the commands for updating each file. I also think the second comma is incorrect ("comma splice") and suggest removing it as seen above: even the 'Oxford comma' rule only applies to lists of three or more items. Philip Guenther

Re: [bug] Sibling submakes: wait for other submakes before failing

sourceforge.net/auug97.pdf +1000 In October 2001 I applied the logic of that paper to a 1/2 million line work project to cut its build time by a factor of 20 and make it reliably build the Right Stuff. Took less than a month to win back the entire time I had spent reading the paper and working out the details of the new Makefile setup. Philip Guenther

Re: bug

people can understand _why_ that exit status was incorrect. Philip Guenther On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:16 PM Prashant Upadhyay wrote: > Process terminated with status 2 (0 minute(s), 0 second(s)) > 0 error(s), 0 warning(s) (0 minute(s), 0 second(s)) > > regards > -- > >

Re: [bug #60281] Directory in directory in $PATH shadows binaries in $PATH

For the record, POSIX specifies that only normal files are considered when searching $PATH, so even though the directory is executable (heh), ignoring it is absolutely the correct thing. Philip Guenther On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:50 PM anonymous wrote: > URL: > <https://savannah.gnu

Re: bug report

nt_patterns, \ $(BUILD)/$(FRONTEND)/%.html \ $(BUILD)/$(FRONTEND)/%.js \ $(BUILD)/$(FRONTEND)/%.css \ $(BUILD)/$(FRONTEND)/%.svg \ $(BUILD)/$(FRONTEND)/%.ico, , cmds) Not the most obvious, friendly syntax, but it appears to do what you're trying to accomplish. Philip Guenther

Re: [PATCH] Add the --nice argument to make

ing like alias make='nice -n10 make' or maybe make() { nice -n10 /usr/bin/make "$@"; } Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: lex implicit rule chain is broken

require the dependency: you get the same results when the makefile is just lang: Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: lex implicit rule chain is broken

*no* Makefile and give it the name of the matching executable (ala "make lang" in this case) or use a Makefile sets the default target ala echo ".DEFAULT_GOAL = lang" >Makefile and it'll deduce the rest from its default pattern rules. Philip Guenther __

Re: [bug #51311] Checking search retries for implicit make rules

acter, so building > MOTD.log won't work. This is correct, as per the documentation quoted above. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Checking alternatives for a dynamic make rule construction

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > I have constructed the following small script to be executed by the program > “GNU Make 4.2.1-1.7” on my openSUSE Tumbleweed system. > > > define rule_pair = > name::=$(1) Using ::= in a makefile which is already dependent on GNU make is, IMO, poi

Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes

ide examples of the Makefiles rules you tried? It's very difficult to provide feedback without complete information. Does ocamldep generate output suitable for inclusion by make? What rule did you use to invoke it? Philip Guenther __

Re: Checking software build tries for “commands.cmo”

and say "is there a rule that improves the error output in this case? Is that output at least as good for *other* makefiles?" If the answers aren't both "yes", then you're suggesting a trade-off of your makefile for someone else's and have this co

Re: Checking software build tries for “commands.cmo”

ot; might need to be rebuilt if "bar.ml" changes? If so, then you might just have too many dependencies but all too few and should be looking at the direction make-for-C went to solve this. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Checking software build tries for “commands.cmo”

s for > this test case. Why is the source file “commands.ml” not compiled again > in the way as the other one? The snippet of Makefile you provided didn't include any rules for building "commands.ml", so I don't understand why you expect make to build it. Philip Guent

Re: Non existing target not marked as new

t that's a waste of time when you could just copy your test Makefile in to email to the list. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: exported vs command line variables

icular, the Macros section has this line earlier in it: The result of setting MAKEFLAGS in the Makefile is unspecified. So if you want POSIX-like behavior, don't do that; if you do that, you're at the whims of GNU make's choices. Philip Guenther __

Re: exported vs command line variables

an environment variable that already exists in the environment of make. (That's from the 2013 draft update; the '+' lines were modified from the original 2008 version of the standard, but that doesn't affect the first sentence.) Philip Guenther __

Re: [bug #49093] ifdef checks for non-empty value, not definition

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Paul D. Smith wrote: ... > Probably an example like this would help make the doc more clear. There *is* an example like that in the doc in at least version 4.2.1! Note that `ifdef' only tests whether a variable has a value. It does not expand the varia

Re: disparity in Paul’s Rules

ou break them), but this one it _almost_ does so. Maybe the divergence between the rule and GNU make's behavior is exactly what makes this a rule: Paul knows this corner of GNU make's behavior and is telling you to act like it isn't there and to follow his simpler, better rule...

Re: Difficulties from the combination of functions "call" and "eval"

en do STUFF create_inputs >inputs $(call STUFF,inputs,$1) endef all: $(call MORESTUFF,output) When building 'all', make will expand $(call MORESTUFF,output) by temporarily setting $1 to 'output' then expanding MORESTUFF. The $(call STUFF,i

Re: Difficulties from the combination of functions "call" and "eval"

ive language; forcing it into an imperative style is just going to give you ulcers, or more likely, give ulcers to your co-worker or co-maintainer or the six-months-from-now version of you, when they/you have to figure out how this Makefile works. To quote Brian Kernighan: "Everyone knows t

Re: Questionable line number in a message "missing separator"?

to return. Currently you're evaling something that doesn't look like a *STANDALONE* chunk of Makefile, which results in the error *in the eval*. Paul, I still think $(eval) should have been named $(stick-arm-in-woodchipper), to make it less seductive to people trying to layer imper

Re: Questionable line number in a message "missing separator"?

ssignment, a vpath setting, etc then the previous recipe is closed and you can't add another recipe line to it. Of course, if you had actually quoted the relevant lines from your Makefile, we could be more precise. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailin

Re: bug with order-only prerequisites & implicit rules implementation ?

this case, especially as I've told make that all *.oop targets are > phony. Pattern rules, unlike normal rules, are never merged. Each one stands alone and either completely overrides a previous pattern rule with the exact same target and prerequisites (but possibly different commands, or *no

Re: [bug #42690] make unconditionally resolves the current directory

ponents that resolves to the process's current directory, then use that instead of the path from getcwd(). This hit me when I tried to make in a directory that had a colon in the > name; > Doctor says: "Don't do that!" make is only one of many program which you will

Re: Question about pattern rule with multiple targets

rent bits handle it just fine, rebuilding both, of course. There's certainly some way to express the "if the either file is missing, rebuild both" using $(if) and $(wildcard) to check for existence, but my reaction right now is "fix the tool that isn't generating consistent output

Re: Question about pattern rule with multiple targets

2 targets should be considered > out-of-date. But when I manually remove the a.bar2 file, the a.bar1 > file is still considered to be up-to-date. Yet, when I then ask to > build the a.bar2 target, both the a.bar1 and a.bar2 targets are > re-built. > Umm, why isn't this solv

Re: error reporting

/gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. : morgaine; gmake gmake: *** No rule to make target 'bar', needed by 'foo'. Stop. : morgaine; What information about your situ

Re: vms:test variables

the full bug-make list is useful; are you expecting random list members to provide feedback on them? Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: win32 compilation of make 4.0 source code

On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > From: Paul Smith > > > > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 8:57 PM > > ... > > > > ifneq ($(filter else-if,$(.FEATURES)),else-if) > > > >$(error Version $(MAKE_VERSION) does not support else-if)

Re: win32 compilation of make 4.0 source code

of its output. You've been unwilling to given any specific examples of your problems, makefile snippets, or output, and yet you question when other don't provide them? Since you obviously don't have the current version of make installed, why would anyone bother? Philip Guenther

Re: win32 compilation of make 4.0 source code

(Dang it: gmail treats control-enter as "send"...) On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Philip Guenther wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >> First, let me request that you include the question posed to you, >> in your Reply responses in this emai

Re: win32 compilation of make 4.0 source code

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > First, let me request that you include the question posed to you, > in your Reply responses in this email sequence. How about you stop top-posting and instead reply inline? > 1) I think my question was explicit. > A method for an existing Ma

Re: make doesn't complain if target cannot be built

BJS): | generated.h That guarantees the generated.h file will exist before trying to build any objects, but if generated.h gets rebuilt, only the objects that have real dependencies from the automated dependency tracking setup will get rebuilt. Philip Guenther __

Re: [bug #40361] make 4.0 under hpux 11.31 no longer prints output correctly

as the workaround code we used would make a first try passing a buflen of 1 and a single char buf instead of a buflen of zero and NULL. Or maybe that part was a bug in AIX. Hmm... Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #40225] Deterministic output ordering

will be: a1.o a2.o b1.o b2.o b a Without -j, the order will always be a1.o a2.o a b1.o b2.o b Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #40056] make should automatically detect targets with low resolution timestamps

tions/fpathconf.html However, last I checked glibc and Linux didn't implement it. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Condtional target-specific variable assignment does not work as expected

in a macro which is used by the 'init', 'start', and 'start_clean' targets and the 'common' target itself eliminated. Indeed, the same may be true of 'init_server', 'start_server', and 'start_clean_server', particularly if they d

Re: Default output-sync setting (was: Re: [bug #33138] .PARLLELSYNC enhancement with patch)

eathered, and the projects that would most benefit from the new functionality instead turning it off. If there are other fixes and/or features in this release that people are waiting for, burning them on this would be unfriendly. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-

Re: [bug #38437] cannot find the include file

t of the path by which 1.mak was included # This should be before any other includes in 1.mak dir_of_1 = $(dir $(lastword $(MAKEFILE_LIST))) ...and then later: # pull in 2.mak in the same directory as this file include ${dir_of_1}2.mak Philip Guenther ___

Re: [bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"

nce. Don't let it pass. Or you could try doing that yourself. No one needs my approval to do it, or to put it on Daniel, and Paul could easily decide that your patch is an improvement and check it in. (Oops, guess I screwed up my second chance.) Philip Guenther __

Re: [bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Wagenaar wrote: > I appreciate your correction, but I still feel that the documentation on the > website would be more helpful if it at least mentioned that older versions > of make fail quietly when there is a "=" at the end of the line. The reason > is tha

Re: [bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"

; to read the documentation that's installed on your system and therefore matches the version you're running. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #38420] $(realpath ...) doesn't recover from signals

ly and need a way to bail out, regardless of the consequences"...) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: prerequisites alter choice of pattern match rules?

le chains, and we also wanted some way other than order-in-the-makefile to prefer a rule". Or "if there's a direct way to build something, it must obviously be the right choice over something which requires an intermediate file; if you don't want that, then you should cr

Re: prerequisites alter choice of pattern match rules?

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote: ... > It seems like normally GNU make walks the path of the most specific > match in case of ambiguities. I wonder if that's specified/documented > anywhere. Yes, it is. I don't remember where, but it's in the

Re: timestamp bug when files are created just before make is run

second in which config.h and stamp-h1 were created) ... > Another possible solution for this bug would be to remove rm -f stamp-h1 > from config.h.in rule, but there is some complex explanation in > /usr/local/share/automake-1.12/am/remake-hdr.am why rm -f stamp-h1 is > there so it wo

Re: Possible bug (documentation or make itself) not sure

the documentation that was included in the version that you have installed; try running "info make" I suggest you also yell at your distribution for both not providing the current version *and* for not pointing you at the correct documentation for the version that they are shipping.

Re: Example error in make manual

>> >> the example >>> define run-yacc = No, the example is correct *for the current version of GNU make*. You need to either a) upgrade to the current version, or b) read the documentation that was included in the version that you hav

Re: sh embedding

;all' and having 'all' *not* be PHONY? > rm -f $@.lock; \ > else \ > sleep 1; \ > fi; If the lock cannot be obtained, you just sleep a second and then return success? Why not at least "exit 1" there so that the caller can tell that the make failed

Re: [bug #36881] Sample code for $(eval) is incorrect and fails.

> all my systems, even ones that I recently provisioned, are running 3.81. The info docs that are part of the installed binary package would surely match the installed binary. Either info make or info 'gnu make' has worked on every system I'

Re: add Order-only Prerequisites example

s of B. Nope, wrong. If you want make to guarantee that, you must express it as a dependency between C and B. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 06/12/2012 02:06 AM, Philip Guenther wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Stefano Lattarini >> wrote: >> ... >>> I was hoping to be able to the order-only prerequisites to enforce ordering >&g

Re: order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

ain, run T1's recipe, then T2's recipe I think I would use a test on $(MAKECMDGOALS) to make T1 a prerequisite of T2 if and only if T1 is a goal, say... ifneq ($(filter T1,${MAKECMDGOALS}),) T2: T1 endif Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

. As long as a phony target is never a prerequisite of a real target, the phony target recipe will be executed only when the phony target is a specified goal (*note Arguments to Specify the Goals: Goals.). ) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mail

Re: Feature request

er-only prerequisites". Read the GNU info pages for details of the syntax and to confirm that it does what you want. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #35132] Side effects of .SECONDARY with no targets not documented

rules? How can we debug this when you don't provide *ANY* examples of a rule for building one of those symlinks? As for issue problem with .PRECIOUS, well, it works with patterns for me; please provide an actual example. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Fw: error

more details. > make[2]: *** [configure-stage1-target-libgcc] Error 1 This is a problem with gcc's configure script and/or your build environment and has nothing to do with GNU make. You've (apparently) already posted your question to a mailing list for gcc; waiting for help from there

Re: [bug #33034] "Makefile:23: *** mixed implicit and normal rules. Stop." for Linux kernel out of source builds

ses should be applied to all the tools in the kernel build environment. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #33134] spurious error when stdout is already closed

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:50 AM, David Boyce wrote: > All quite true and admirably researched but this is not a > standards-lawyering exercise, it's a software-engineering issue. Why are you closing stdout instead of redirecting it to /dev/null? Phil

Re: [bug #33134] spurious error when stdout is already closed

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:31 PM, David Boyce wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Philip Guenther wrote: >> Why is that a mistake? >> >> It appears you're saying that make should complain about failures to >> write to stdout for reasons like EIO, ENOSPC,

Re: [bug #33134] spurious error when stdout is already closed

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:36 PM, David Boyce wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Philip Guenther wrote: >> Could you explain why you think that's spurious?  Make wanted to write >> "date" to stdout and the write failed.  Seems legit to me. ... > Ba

Re: [bug #33134] spurious error when stdout is already closed

t say "make: write error: Bad file descriptor" like it does if you change the command invoked to ":", but that's a distinct issue.) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: mention how to get the other half of $*

xcf) %.jpeg: %.pdf: $(call run_gs,jpeg) (Yes, you could use $(foreach) and $(eval) to iterate across the types and define rules for each...and it'll take you longer to write and GNU make longer to process.) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing

Re: [PATCH] Options: `--dry-run' should prevent `--touch' from touching

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Michael Witten wrote: > The `--dry-run' flag is supposed to be safe in that nothing > in the file system is actually modified. That's not actually true. To quote the docs: `-n' `--just-print' `--dry-run' `--recon' "No-op". The activity is to print what reci

Re: Intermittent parallel make rebuild failures

That raises florescent red flags to me. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Intermittent parallel make rebuild failures

ght be read multiple times, the earlier of which could affect the latter of which? Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: GNU make distribution with proprietary products

tify (at least) one of them. The tone of these messages seem...unfriendly to the practice. I've seen software that does what you describe, but I see no reason to identify them to be pilloried for it. What problem are you trying to solve? Philip Guenther

Re: including makefile name and line number for shell_function_completed

swer is the former, but I have slight misgivings and I suspect there are places where someone would want immediate expansion. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: insufficient debug info from gnu-make

g, as you can > see below the average is over 400 chars/line, here is > some sample output from my failed build, you can't > really tell much of anything from reading this output That problem (monstrously long compile lines) has absolutely nothing to do with make and there's no

Re: [RFC]serialize the output of parallel make?

ake -j4  2>&1 |  tee output.txt" may be common. And what, exactly, are you suggesting that make do to reflect that guess about usage patterns? Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #29757] Target-specific variables change their flavor

7;", with the result that the right-hand side is expanded *twice*. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #29757] Target-specific variables change their flavor

o quote the info pages: For the append operator, `+=', the right-hand side is considered immediate if the variable was previously set as a simple variable (`:='), and deferred otherwise. > Variable does not know what way it was assigned. They do in GNU make. Note that += is

Re: Shorter and less error-prone rule for automatic prerequisite generation in the GNU Make manual

and what needs to be put in the dependency files to solve it, and then gives an implementation that works with all 'makedepend' methods; gcc's -MP option came later is is just an optimized method for those using -MD) Philip Guenther ___

Re: Shorter and less error-prone rule for automatic prerequisite generation in the GNU Make manual

igger re-exec. Ah, it looks like your comments are addressed at just what's in the GNU make info pages and not the advanced method on Paul's webpage. I agree that what's in the info pages has many of the problems you mention...which is why this thread is about updating what's there. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Shorter and less error-prone rule for automatic prerequisite generation in the GNU Make manual

There's still the case of a .o and .d pair that both exist where the .o is out of date to one of its dependencies. If the .d file is a target, then make will first rebuild the .d, re-exec, then rebuild the .o. The re-exec is unnecessary there; building the .d as a side-effect of building the .o

Re: Static multiple target rules

hink the sysV syntax is *great*, I personally think it's a better choice than overloading the meaning of parentheses.) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Weird text-dependent bug in $(eval ...), simple test case

val), they report the problem as being in $(eval) and make no attempt to reproduce it directly. Since this is a hinderance to getting good bug reports, it would help if you could examine why this happened in this case so that it might possible be avoided in the

Re: Prioritizing non-dependent targets in parallel make

the sort of problem where the consequences of the solution are likely to be greater than expected and it should probably be handed to some CS grad student as a possible research project. Isn't that what grad schools are for, banging on possibly open-ended problems? Philip Guenther

Re: [bug #27714] expansion of $(shell) in target forces serialization of targets

ake it an incredible, royal pain to implement. Ditto for $(error). Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: GNU make to consider files checksum

ecompilation and/or relinking and how much time it would save then? What's the comparison to how much time would be spent calculating the checksums? If it saves a minute once every 100 compiles but costs a second in each of those, then it's a net

Re: [bug #27437] Problems with make in a directory with present Makefiles. make does not function.

e snort people hide that file in a subdirectory, unlike practically all other projects.) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: GNU make to consider files checksum

d Right Now. Anyway, we now return you to your originally scheduled mailing list. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Why "*** extraneous `endef'. Stop."?

r2 endef endef endif I suggest you visit http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/make and submit the bug. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #27374] fatal error reading included makefile silently ignored

s as long as a variable isn't empty to implement unbound iteration, which $(for) can't do. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Segmentation fault in make-3.81

on to run into the same bug might not be using such a simple > makefile with easy alternatives. Sure. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Segmentation fault in make-3.81

crashes on your makefile...but that makefile just seems like the wrong way to solve your problem.) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: .SECONDARY vs. .PRECIOUS doc of danger

> intermediate file. .SECONDARY, on the other hand, will blow - it - away. > > $ ls > Makefile  u.kml > $ cat Makefile > .SECONDARY:%.kmz As documented, .SECONDARY does not support target patterns, so the difference in behavior is expected. Philip Guenther __

Re: Section 3.8 of the info manual not respected

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Anthony Shipman wrote: > On Wed, 27 May 2009 11:26:14 am Philip Guenther wrote: ... >> The paragraph just above the example says this: >> >>    For example, if you have a makefile called `Makefile' that says how >> to make the

Re: Section 3.8 of the info manual not respected

urse the example doesn't work. Since you don't have a Makefile already, why are you trying to use an example for overriding an existing makefile? > An implicit rule search is performed for the target GNUmakefile. This is not > expected. While GNU make will automatically try to rebui

Re: automatic linking links too many files

ter is to write a command that handles all the changed archive members in one go: staticlibrary.a: yetanothercfile.o yacf.o $(AR) $(ARFLAGS) $@ $? Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: automatic linking links too many files

those needed at build-time. If "foo.ui" is read at runtime by the executable itself, then the foo.ui is *NOT* a prerequisite of the executable. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

  1   2   >