Hi,
I think I've found a bug in make. This potential
problem has to do with reducing dependency files to
canonical names. In other words, make treats a
filename './mydir/myfile' as not equivalent to a file
'./mydir/./myfile' while the filesystem considers
these two paths to be equivalent. I'm
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:01:51 -0500
> From: "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >>> - GNU make does not "make" >included< make rule files
> >>> and complains about nonexistent files
>
> I don't understand the first one here; make _does_ make included make
> rule files. Perhap
We are in agreement. I do not like it, but I do understand.
Thanks again for the time,
Matthew
-Original Message-
From: Paul D. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Paul D. Smith
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:09 AM
To: Matthew Von-Maszewski
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE:
%% "Matthew Von-Maszewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mv> You and I could argue all day about interpretations of "equally
mv> applicable" and "order in which pattern rules appear". You read
mv> this a firm requirement definition. I read it as fuzzy. But the
mv> bottom line is what is
%% Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> - GNU make does not "make" >included< make rule files
>>> and complains about nonexistent files
I don't understand the first one here; make _does_ make included make
rule files. Perhaps he means it includes them before trying to make
them; thi
As a long time "abuser" of makefiles - especially using gnu make extensions,
I feel
a need to speak up here.
I see Matthew's need, and feel his pain in dealing with lots of makefiles
that
include one another, making it hard to predict the order. However, I feel
that the
current behavior is more
Yep, my case is light against the history of the tool.
You and I could argue all day about interpretations of "equally applicable"
and "order in which pattern rules appear". You read this a firm requirement
definition. I read it as fuzzy. But the bottom line is what is in the
code.
I do appre
%% "Matthew Von-Maszewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mv> I understand your concern. What is the impact to older makefiles
mv> if this change is implemented?
There are more issues than this, too:
1) Difference in behavior with other pattern rules. The way "normal"
pattern rules are
Hmm,
I understand your concern. What is the impact to older makefiles if this
change is implemented? I would assess the impact as follows:
1. User worked around the bug: by changing the order of the rules, a user
can get around the limitation. These users would not be effected by this
change
[I'm forwarding this message that was posted on comp.unix.solaris.]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: GNU make --> Solaris make converter ?
Date: 17 Mar 2001 14:52:07 GMT
Organization: Technische Universitaet Berlin, Deutsch
10 matches
Mail list logo
