[bug #25493] -include filename does not show correct dependency errors
URL: http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?25493 Summary: -include filename does not show correct dependency errors Project: make Submitted by: willard Submitted on: Wed 04 Feb 2009 09:52:12 PM GMT Severity: 3 - Normal Item Group: Bug Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Component Version: 3.81 Operating System: None Fixed Release: None ___ Details: When using the -include filename(instead of just include filename), if this filename includes dependencies that are missing, make does not show those missing dependencies... For example, if using: -include foo.d with foo.d being: food.d foo.o: foo.c xxx.h Let's say xxx.h does not exist (and cannot be generated) , the make fails, but it does not say it's because of xxx.h missing. If instead, this is used: include foo.d then it works fine... I understand that the '-' in front of include means that THIS file 'foo.d' should not itself generate an error, but I would expect the content of foo.d to be used normally Full 1st example: - $ cat bad.mak all: foo.d foo.ooo COMPILE=gcc %.o: %.c $(COMPILE) -c $ %.d: %.c $(COMPILE) -c $ -MM -o $*.d -include foo.d foo.ooo: foo.o ld -o foo.ooo foo.o [/cygdrive/d/tstmake] $ make -f bad.mak make: *** No rule to make target `foo.d', needed by `all'. Stop. [/cygdrive/d/tstmake] $ cat good.mak all: foo.d foo.ooo COMPILE=gcc %.o: %.c $(COMPILE) -c $ %.d: %.c $(COMPILE) -c $ -MM -o $*.d include foo.d foo.ooo: foo.o ld -o foo.ooo foo.o [/cygdrive/d/tstmake] $ make -f good.mak make: *** No rule to make target `xxx.h', needed by `foo.d'. Stop. [/cygdrive/d/tstmake] $ cat foo.d foo.d foo.o: foo.c xxx.h the only difference between the 'good.mak' and 'bad.mak' is the '-' prefix on the include... See that the good.mak really displays what the problem is... whereas the bad.mak messages are not helpful. Full 2nd example: - it's the same if foo.d is not a direct target. It's even worse as make fails without ANY error message. Example2: $ cat bad2.mak all: foo.ooo COMPILE=gcc %.o: %.c $(COMPILE) -c $ %.d: %.c $(COMPILE) -c $ -MM -o $*.d -include foo.d foo.ooo: foo.o ld -o foo.ooo foo.o [/cygdrive/d/tstmake] $ make -f bad2.mak [/cygdrive/d/tstmake] $ cat makefile all: $(MAKE) -f bad2.mak [/cygdrive/d/tstmake] $ make make -f bad2.mak make: *** [all] Error 2 [/cygdrive/d/tstmake] $ cat foo.d foo.d foo.o: foo.c xxx.h See that the 'make -f bad2.mak' shows no message at all..(but going thru a makefile shows Error 2). ___ Reply to this item at: http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?25493 ___ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.gnu.org/ ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: -include filename does not show correct dependency errors
it's the same if foo.d is not a direct target. It's even worse as make fails without ANY error message. Example2: $ cat bad2.mak all: foo.ooo COMPILE=gcc %.o: %.c $(COMPILE) -c $ %.d: %.c $(COMPILE) -c $ -MM -o $*.d -include foo.d foo.ooo: foo.o ld -o foo.ooo foo.o [/cygdrive/d/opentv/tstmake] $ make -f bad2.mak [/cygdrive/d/opentv/tstmake] $ cat makefile all: $(MAKE) -f bad2.mak [/cygdrive/d/opentv/tstmake] $ make make -f bad2.mak make: *** [all] Error 2 [/cygdrive/d/opentv/tstmake] $ cat foo.d foo.d foo.o: foo.c xxx.h See that the 'make -f bad2.mak' shows no message at all..(but going thru a makefile shows Error 2). I am sure I can find a work-around, but this seems like a nasty bug THAT SHOULD BE FIXED. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-include-filename-does-not-show-correct-dependency-errors-tp21699973p21710735.html Sent from the Gnu - Make - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: -include filename does not show correct dependency errors
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:39 AM, willard pie...@willard.com wrote: it's the same if foo.d is not a direct target. It's even worse as make fails without ANY error message. Nice! xxx.h gets marked as failed and the error silenced, and the silencing applies to all paths to xxx.h and not just the foo.d-xxx.h path. See that the 'make -f bad2.mak' shows no message at all..(but going thru a makefile shows Error 2). (echo $? after running make works too) I am sure I can find a work-around, but this seems like a nasty bug THAT SHOULD BE FIXED. Whoa, no need to yell! I didn't intend to suggest that the bug should not be fixed. My don't spend time banging you head comment was for you, as a user of make, and not the developers of make (of which I am _not_ one). Hmm, since you feel strongly about this, the GNU make developers would probably find it helpful if you were to verify whether this bug still exists in the development (CVS) version of GNU make and, if so, file a bug for it or, if there already is bug for it, comment on that bug. If nothing else, that would let you be notified when the bug *is* fixed. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: -include filename does not show correct dependency errors
I am new to this message board... I did not intend to yell... Thanks for the info... I hope the Gnu Make developers are listening to bug-m...@gnu.org. I had a quick look at the CVS tree bug tracking (on sourceforge.net), and I didn't see anything resembling this issue... -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-include-filename-does-not-show-correct-dependency-errors-tp21699973p21715450.html Sent from the Gnu - Make - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: -include filename does not show correct dependency errors
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 13:27 -0800, willard wrote: I am new to this message board... I did not intend to yell... Thanks for the info... I hope the Gnu Make developers are listening to bug-m...@gnu.org. I had a quick look at the CVS tree bug tracking (on sourceforge.net), and I didn't see anything resembling this issue... ?? There's no GNU make project on sourceforge.net, at least not that I'm aware of. GNU make, like most other GNU projects and all (as far as I'm aware) FSF projects, is hosted on Savannah, which is a hosting service using free software, not SourceForge which is not free software. Try here: https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/make/ -- --- Paul D. Smith psm...@gnu.org Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://make.mad-scientist.us Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional. --Mad Scientist ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
-include filename does not show correct dependency errors
When using the -include filename(instead of just include filename), if this filename includes dependencies that are missing, makefile does not show those missing dependencies... For example, if using: -include foo.d with foo.d being: foo.o: foo.c xxx.h Let's say xxx.h does not exist (and cannot be generated) , the make fails, but it does not say it's because of xxx.h missing. If instead, this is used: include foo.d then it works fine... I understand that the '-' in front of include means that THIS file 'foo.d' should not itself generate an error, but I would expect the content of foo.d to be used normally Looks like a bug to me. Btw, I am using make 3.81. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-include-filename-does-not-show-correct-dependency-errors-tp21699973p21699973.html Sent from the Gnu - Make - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: -include filename does not show correct dependency errors
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 8:59 PM, willard pie...@willard.com wrote: When using the -include filename(instead of just include filename), if this filename includes dependencies that are missing, makefile does not show those missing dependencies... For example, if using: -include foo.d with foo.d being: foo.o: foo.c xxx.h Let's say xxx.h does not exist (and cannot be generated) , the make fails, but it does not say it's because of xxx.h missing. Well, what _does_ it say? When I set up things to match your description, it mentions xxx.h for me: $ ls Makefile foo.cfoo.d $ cat Makefile all: foo -include foo.d $ cat foo.d foo.o: foo.c xxx.h $ make make: *** No rule to make target `xxx.h', needed by `foo.o'. Stop. $ make --version | head -1 GNU Make 3.81 Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: -include filename does not show correct dependency errors
this is my example (create the foo.d manually as below) $ cat bad.mak all: foo.d foo.ooo COMPILE=gcc %.o: %.c $(COMPILE) -c $ %.d: %.c $(COMPILE) -c $ -MM -o $*.d -include foo.d foo.ooo: foo.o ld -o foo.ooo foo.o [/cygdrive/d/opentv/tstmake] $ make -f bad.mak make: *** No rule to make target `foo.d', needed by `all'. Stop. [/cygdrive/d/opentv/tstmake] $ cat good.mak all: foo.d foo.ooo COMPILE=gcc %.o: %.c $(COMPILE) -c $ %.d: %.c $(COMPILE) -c $ -MM -o $*.d include foo.d foo.ooo: foo.o ld -o foo.ooo foo.o [/cygdrive/d/opentv/tstmake] $ make -f good.mak make: *** No rule to make target `xxx.h', needed by `foo.d'. Stop. [/cygdrive/d/opentv/tstmake] $ cat foo.d foo.d foo.o: foo.c xxx.h the only difference between the 'good.mak' and 'bad.mak' is the '-' prefix on the include... See that the good.mak really displays what the problem is... whereas the bad.mak messages are not helpful. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-include-filename-does-not-show-correct-dependency-errors-tp21699973p21700324.html Sent from the Gnu - Make - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Re: -include filename does not show correct dependency errors
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:44 PM, willard pie...@willard.com wrote: this is my example (create the foo.d manually as below) Well, now that you've shown your whole Makefile, I have a guess as to why make is behaving as it is. It's tied that the face that you use foo.d both as an implicit target (by virtue of being an included makefile) and as an explicit target, as a dependency of 'all'. My guess is that when make first tries to build foo.d and fails, it marks foo.d as unbuildable, but not why. Later, when you have it try to build foo.d (again), it sees that it has already marked it as failed, so gives up directly. My advice is to avoid this by fixing your auto-dependency method. If you just build the *.d files concurrently with the *.o files, then you could avoid naming foo.d as either dependency or target. The details of why that works correctly and how to actually do that concurrent building can be found in the Advanced Auto-Dependencies section of http://make.paulandlesley.org/autodep.html Yeah, make should give a less misleading error message, but why spend time banging your head on a bug that could be avoided by making your own code less wasteful? Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
