%% Stan Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> There is no way to get more than what you already see without adding >> code to GNU make.
sb> Thanks -- this is what I was asking. OK. I did say this same thing in my first reply, though :-). sb> I'm immensely frustrated, and I have no idea where to turn -- sb> debugging make in source code is really not a project I want to sb> take on. I know it's a free program, so I don't have any right to sb> complain;but I'm astonished that as long as XP has been out, sb> someone hasn't noticed this problem and fixed it. I expect that it works OK for others, or there would be more complaining. Although note that the Windows port of GNU make is "community maintained": the official GNU make maintainers (ahem) don't have any Windows systems and can't even test whether it compiles on Windows, much less works correctly there. I suggest you send a question to the [email protected] mailing list, which is where lots of people using GNU make on DOS/Windows/OS2 systems tend to congregate, and give more specific details about how you built GNU make, what version you're using, with exact examples of small makefiles or fragments that show the problem, and explain what's wrong with them. Probably someone there will be able to give you better advice. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist _______________________________________________ help-gnu-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-utils
