Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 23 May 2006 22:22:09 GMT: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Mackenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 23 May 2006 19:14:34 GMT:
>>> GNU make has many bugs that prevent GNU make from being POSIX compliant. >>OK. >>> Some of the bugs are related to the makefile parser and this causes real >>> problems. >>That is, problems which stop you getting your work done, not just >>special boundary cases you can dream up to break things. > As many people who are on e.g. Linux and don't know a more POSIX > compliant make program although there is "smake", these people write > makefiles that only work in case that the GNU make bugs are present. > This is one of the most nasty reasons for non-portable programs today. Thanks, I didn't know that. I get the feeling you've expended a fair bit of effort trying to get the GNU make to come into line. I saw your reply to Ray Ingles. I can't really see that the thing about lots of escaped newlines would cause a problem in practice. Has even a single person in the entire history of programming ever, in all seriousness, written consecutive escaped newlines like that? I mean, even the shell has problems with WS. For example, if you call the shell script foo thusly: foo "a b" and foo calls bar so: bar "$1" , bar will see "a b". But the stuff about $< and $* looks more irksome altogether. Are you sure that these differences aren't perhaps more a matter of the POSIX spec not being 100% unambiguous? Presumably it is possible, even if not nice, to bridge the differences between these makes with autoconf and things like that. -- Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter (like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a"). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
