On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 08:19 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > However, if the second position-dependent run fails > > (compiler bug, usually, but could also be running out of disk space) it > > will fail without any error message being printed. > > Yes. Have you actually hit a compiler bug that way before? I think > it's much more likely that the set of warnings is different rather > than a failure, but others may have a different experience.
Yes; the issue that prompted this was an incident where the -fPIC pass compiled without any warnings at all, while the non-fPIC pass was generating a spurious warning - that wouldn't have been a problem, but the maintainers had decided that the package should always be compiled with -Werror. It's a tiny corner case, I know - but if I've been bitten then certainly other people will have seen this and not had the patience to debug it. > > Would it make sense to capture output from the second compilation > > instead of discarding it, then print it if the second compilation fails? > > Suggested patch against HEAD. It costs one more fork of `rm' per > compile, and makes the typical echoed command line longer, but saves > the user from having to type something like > make || env CFLAGS='... -no-suppress' make -e > > WDYT? (Adding Ed to THANKS not shown.) That looks great, thanks! Ed 1. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196103 2. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29478 _______________________________________________ Bug-libtool mailing list Bugfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-libtool