Re: GNU make troubleshooting

I just put this at the very end of top makefile: ${MAKEFILE_LIST}: ; Philip Guenther On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 12:25 PM Torbjorn SVENSSON < torbjorn.svens...@foss.st.com> wrote: > > > On 2023-07-16 15:58, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > Wow! That's a great help for debugging

Re: [bug #63330] readdir() error in 4.4 on Solaris 8

Is make being built with -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 to use the large-file APIs? If not, then maybe the problem is an inode number that doesn't fit in the old 32-bit ino_t that some struct dirent's were stuck with. Check the output of "ls -l -i" (note the -i option!) to see if there's an inode number

Re: [bug #63307] make 4.4 passes ignored SIGPIPE on to children

On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 1:34 PM Dmitry Goncharov wrote: > Follow-up Comment #6, bug #63307 (project make): > > > If SIGIGN was ignored before make was started though, it should remain > ignored, even for make's children, see also >

Re: please keep up supporting AmigaOS

Well, the good news is that you have lots of volunteers to test new versions where you refactor the code to reduce the intrusiveness of the Amiga changes! "Hi, you expressed interest in GNU make continuing to support your OS; here's where you help us reduce the burden of that."

Re: [PATCH] [SV 63307] Unignore SIGPIPE in spawned children

make should note whether SIGPIPE is ignored on entry and, if so, then it should leave it ignored when it invokes other programs and not unconditionally set SIGPIPE to SIGDFL. Philip Guenther On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 6:29 AM Andreas Schwab wrote: > * configure.ac: Ch

Re: Implicit rule for linking multiple object files

which is robust to future code/design changes really requires a broad view of the dependency structure of the C++ module implementation...which is where guidance from the C++ compiler developers would *really* be useful. Good luck. Philip Guenther On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 9:19 PM ljh wrote

Re: Goodbye to GNU make's "build.sh" ... ?

ake. Lacking a description of a case in the past where build.sh was actually the only sane option, I would go with #2. Philip Guenther

Re: sub makefile does not use correct value of CFLAGS from top make file,

ady in use. Fighting the builtin rules is a bad use of your time.) Philip Guenther On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 12:58 PM Jeffrey.Fellin--- via Bug reports and discussion for GNU make wrote: > I have a project that compiles .S and .c files, and the value of CFLAGS in > the sub makefile

Re: GNU make man page typo

at states the commands for updating each file. I also think the second comma is incorrect ("comma splice") and suggest removing it as seen above: even the 'Oxford comma' rule only applies to lists of three or more items. Philip Guenther

Re: [bug] Sibling submakes: wait for other submakes before failing

forge.net/auug97.pdf +1000 In October 2001 I applied the logic of that paper to a 1/2 million line work project to cut its build time by a factor of 20 and make it reliably build the Right Stuff. Took less than a month to win back the entire time I had spent reading the paper and working out the details of the new Makefile setup. Philip Guenther

Re: bug report

s, \ $(BUILD)/$(FRONTEND)/%.html \ $(BUILD)/$(FRONTEND)/%.js \ $(BUILD)/$(FRONTEND)/%.css \ $(BUILD)/$(FRONTEND)/%.svg \ $(BUILD)/$(FRONTEND)/%.ico, , cmds) Not the most obvious, friendly syntax, but it appears to do what you're trying to accomplish. Philip Guenther

Re: [PATCH] Add the --nice argument to make

alias make='nice -n10 make' or maybe make() { nice -n10 /usr/bin/make "$@"; } Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: lex implicit rule chain is broken

same results when the makefile is just lang: Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: lex implicit rule chain is broken

the name of the matching executable (ala "make lang" in this case) or use a Makefile sets the default target ala echo ".DEFAULT_GOAL = lang" >Makefile and it'll deduce the rest from its default pattern rules. Philip Guenther

Re: [bug #51311] Checking search retries for implicit make rules

ork. This is correct, as per the documentation quoted above. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Checking alternatives for a dynamic make rule construction

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > I have constructed the following small script to be executed by the program > “GNU Make 4.2.1-1.7” on my openSUSE Tumbleweed system. > > > define rule_pair = > name::=$(1) Using ::= in a makefile which is already dependent on GNU make is, IMO,

Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes

ide examples of the Makefiles rules you tried? It's very difficult to provide feedback without complete information. Does ocamldep generate output suitable for inclusion by make? What rule did you use to invoke it? Philip Guenther ___

Re: Checking software build tries for “commands.cmo”

y "is there a rule that improves the error output in this case? Is that output at least as good for *other* makefiles?" If the answers aren't both "yes", then you're suggesting a trade-off of your makefile for someone else's and have this consider and explain *why*

Re: Checking software build tries for “commands.cmo”

t if "bar.ml" changes? If so, then you might just have too many dependencies but all too few and should be looking at the direction make-for-C went to solve this. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Checking software build tries for “commands.cmo”

for > this test case. Why is the source file “commands.ml” not compiled again > in the way as the other one? The snippet of Makefile you provided didn't include any rules for building "commands.ml", so I don't understand why you expect make to build it. Philip Guenther __

Re: Non existing target not marked as new

guess at the problem, but that's a waste of time when you could just copy your test Makefile in to email to the list. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: exported vs command line variables

havior incorrect. In particular, the Macros section has this line earlier in it: The result of setting MAKEFLAGS in the Makefile is unspecified. So if you want POSIX-like behavior, don't do that; if you do that, you're at the whims of GNU make's choices. Philip Guenther

Re: exported vs command line variables

of an environment variable that already exists in the environment of make. (That's from the 2013 draft update; the '+' lines were modified from the original 2008 version of the standard, but that doesn't affect the first sentence.) Philip Guenther __

Re: [bug #49093] ifdef checks for non-empty value, not definition

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Paul D. Smith wrote: ... > Probably an example like this would help make the doc more clear. There *is* an example like that in the doc in at least version 4.2.1! Note that `ifdef' only tests whether a variable has a value. It

Re: Difficulties from the combination of functions call and eval

that will temporarily override that by setting $1 to 'inputs' and $2 to 'output' then expanding STUFF. The result will be the same as the earlier example. That distinction between expansion, execution and evaluation make sense? Philip Guenther ___ Bug

Re: Questionable line number in a message missing separator?

of Makefile, which results in the error *in the eval*. Paul, I still think $(eval) should have been named $(stick-arm-in-woodchipper), to make it less seductive to people trying to layer imperative programming on the declarative nature of make. Philip Guenther

Re: Questionable line number in a message missing separator?

, etc then the previous recipe is closed and you can't add another recipe line to it. Of course, if you had actually quoted the relevant lines from your Makefile, we could be more precise. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https

Re: bug with order-only prerequisites implicit rules implementation ?

pattern rule with the exact same target and prerequisites (but possibly different commands, or *no* commands, which cancels the previous pattern rule), or adds a new pattern for the target with different prerequisites. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing

Re: [bug #42690] make unconditionally resolves the current directory

from getcwd(). This hit me when I tried to make in a directory that had a colon in the name; Doctor says: Don't do that! make is only one of many program which you will have problems with. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make

Re: Question about pattern rule with multiple targets

then ask to build the a.bar2 target, both the a.bar1 and a.bar2 targets are re-built. Umm, why isn't this solved by having a correct dependency on a.bar2 where necessary? Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org

Re: Question about pattern rule with multiple targets

certainly some way to express the if the either file is missing, rebuild both using $(if) and $(wildcard) to check for existence, but my reaction right now is fix the tool that isn't generating consistent output... Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list

Re: error reporting

and redistribute it. There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. : morgaine; gmake gmake: *** No rule to make target 'bar', needed by 'foo'. Stop. : morgaine; What information about your situation did you leave out? Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make

Re: vms:test variables

to the full bug-make list is useful; are you expecting random list members to provide feedback on them? Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: win32 compilation of make 4.0 source code

On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Mark Brown wrote: On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Mark Brown mkbrown_...@hotmail.com wrote: From: Paul Smith Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 8:57 PM ... ifneq ($(filter else-if,$(.FEATURES)),else-if) $(error Version $(MAKE_VERSION) does not support

Re: win32 compilation of make 4.0 source code

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Mark Brown mkbrown_...@hotmail.com wrote: First, let me request that you include the question posed to you, in your Reply responses in this email sequence. How about you stop top-posting and instead reply inline? 1) I think my question was explicit. A

Re: win32 compilation of make 4.0 source code

(Dang it: gmail treats control-enter as send...) On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Philip Guenther guent...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Mark Brown mkbrown_...@hotmail.com wrote: First, let me request that you include the question posed to you, in your Reply responses

Re: make doesn't complain if target cannot be built

to build any objects, but if generated.h gets rebuilt, only the objects that have real dependencies from the automated dependency tracking setup will get rebuilt. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman

Re: [bug #40361] make 4.0 under hpux 11.31 no longer prints output correctly

passing a buflen of 1 and a single char buf instead of a buflen of zero and NULL. Or maybe that part was a bug in AIX. Hmm... Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #40056] make should automatically detect targets with low resolution timestamps

/fpathconf.html However, last I checked glibc and Linux didn't implement it. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Default output-sync setting (was: Re: [bug #33138] .PARLLELSYNC enhancement with patch)

instead turning it off. If there are other fixes and/or features in this release that people are waiting for, burning them on this would be unfriendly. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: [bug #38420] $(realpath ...) doesn't recover from signals

of the consequences...) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #38433] Example for eval in documentation contains error with define

on your system and therefore matches the version you're running. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #38433] Example for eval in documentation contains error with define

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Wagenaar d...@caltech.edu wrote: I appreciate your correction, but I still feel that the documentation on the website would be more helpful if it at least mentioned that older versions of make fail quietly when there is a = at the end of the line. The

Re: [bug #38433] Example for eval in documentation contains error with define

to do it, or to put it on Daniel, and Paul could easily decide that your patch is an improvement and check it in. (Oops, guess I screwed up my second chance.) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman

Re: [bug #38437] cannot find the include file

be before any other includes in 1.mak dir_of_1 = $(dir $(lastword $(MAKEFILE_LIST))) ...and then later: # pull in 2.mak in the same directory as this file include ${dir_of_1}2.mak Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https

Re: prerequisites alter choice of pattern match rules?

. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: prerequisites alter choice of pattern match rules?

patterns and filename choices so that you don't get overlapping patterns! ...but I wasn't there and those are just guesses. Philip Guenther ** if there are no prerequisites, then all of the prereqs are present; the list of missing prereqs is empty

Re: timestamp bug when files are created just before make is run

/share/automake-1.12/am/remake-hdr.am why rm -f stamp-h1 is there so it would likely fix one bug and trigger another one. Hmm, adding a sleep 1 after that rm -f and before the touch config.h.in would work without reintroducing the issue described in that explanation, no? Philip Guenther

Re: Possible bug (documentation or make itself) not sure

running info make I suggest you also yell at your distribution for both not providing the current version *and* for not pointing you at the correct documentation for the version that they are shipping. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make

Re: Example error in make manual

, the example define run-yacc = No, the example is correct *for the current version of GNU make*. You need to either a) upgrade to the current version, or b) read the documentation that was included in the version that you have installed; try running info make Philip Guenther

Re: sh embedding

sleep a second and then return success? Why not at least exit 1 there so that the caller can tell that the make failed in a consistent fashion? Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: add Order-only Prerequisites example

and B. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/12/2012 02:06 AM, Philip Guenther wrote: On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote: ... I was hoping to be able to the order-only prerequisites to enforce

Re: order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

a prerequisite of a real target, the phony target recipe will be executed only when the phony target is a specified goal (*note Arguments to Specify the Goals: Goals.). ) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https

Re: order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

on $(MAKECMDGOALS) to make T1 a prerequisite of T2 if and only if T1 is a goal, say... ifneq ($(filter T1,${MAKECMDGOALS}),) T2: T1 endif Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #35132] Side effects of .SECONDARY with no targets not documented

of a rule for building one of those symlinks? As for issue problem with .PRECIOUS, well, it works with patterns for me; please provide an actual example. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: Fw: error

thing to do. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #33034] Makefile:23: *** mixed implicit and normal rules. Stop. for Linux kernel out of source builds

environment. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #33134] spurious error when stdout is already closed

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:50 AM, David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com wrote: All quite true and admirably researched but this is not a standards-lawyering exercise, it's a software-engineering issue. Why are you closing stdout instead of redirecting it to /dev/null? Philip Guenther

Re: [bug #33134] spurious error when stdout is already closed

change the command invoked to :, but that's a distinct issue.) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [PATCH] Options: `--dry-run' should prevent `--touch' from touching

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Michael Witten mfwit...@gmail.com wrote: The `--dry-run' flag is supposed to be safe in that nothing in the file system is actually modified. That's not actually true. To quote the docs: `-n' `--just-print' `--dry-run' `--recon' No-op. The activity is to

Re: Intermittent parallel make rebuild failures

red flags to me. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Intermittent parallel make rebuild failures

could affect the latter of which? Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: insufficient debug info from gnu-make

with make and there's nothing that make can do about it. That's just a problem with the makefile itself and needs to be taken up with the authors of that. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: including makefile name and line number for shell_function_completed

and I suspect there are places where someone would want immediate expansion. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [RFC]serialize the output of parallel make?

, exactly, are you suggesting that make do to reflect that guess about usage patterns? Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #29757] Target-specific variables change their flavor

is expanded *twice*. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #29757] Target-specific variables change their flavor

the info pages: For the append operator, `+=', the right-hand side is considered immediate if the variable was previously set as a simple variable (`:='), and deferred otherwise. Variable does not know what way it was assigned. They do in GNU make. Note that += isn't standardized. Philip

Re: Shorter and less error-prone rule for automatic prerequisite generation in the GNU Make manual

to be put in the dependency files to solve it, and then gives an implementation that works with all 'makedepend' methods; gcc's -MP option came later is is just an optimized method for those using -MD) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make

Re: Shorter and less error-prone rule for automatic prerequisite generation in the GNU Make manual

you mention...which is why this thread is about updating what's there. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Static multiple target rules

the meaning of parentheses.) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Weird text-dependent bug in $(eval ...), simple test case

the problem as being in $(eval) and make no attempt to reproduce it directly. Since this is a hinderance to getting good bug reports, it would help if you could examine why this happened in this case so that it might possible be avoided in the future with others. Philip Guenther

Re: Prioritizing non-dependent targets in parallel make

and it should probably be handed to some CS grad student as a possible research project. Isn't that what grad schools are for, banging on possibly open-ended problems? Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org

Re: [bug #27714] expansion of $(shell) in target forces serialization of targets

in recipes or make it an incredible, royal pain to implement. Ditto for $(error). Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: GNU make to consider files checksum

recompilation and/or relinking and how much time it would save then? What's the comparison to how much time would be spent calculating the checksums? If it saves a minute once every 100 compiles but costs a second in each of those, then it's a net loss...) Philip Guenther

Re: [bug #27437] Problems with make in a directory with present Makefiles. make does not function.

the snort people hide that file in a subdirectory, unlike practically all other projects.) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Why *** extraneous `endef'. Stop.?

://savannah.gnu.org/projects/make and submit the bug. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: GNU make to consider files checksum

to your originally scheduled mailing list. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Segmentation fault in make-3.81

into the same bug might not be using such a simple makefile with easy alternatives. Sure. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Segmentation fault in make-3.81

...but that makefile just seems like the wrong way to solve your problem.) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: .SECONDARY vs. .PRECIOUS doc of danger

, will blow - it - away. $ ls Makefile  u.kml $ cat Makefile .SECONDARY:%.kmz As documented, .SECONDARY does not support target patterns, so the difference in behavior is expected. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http

Re: Section 3.8 of the info manual not respected

an example for overriding an existing makefile? An implicit rule search is performed for the target GNUmakefile. This is not expected. While GNU make will automatically try to rebuild its makefile, that's both A) completely expected, and B) not at all related the error message you quoted. Philip

Re: automatic linking links too many files

is *NOT* a prerequisite of the executable. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: automatic linking links too many files

go: staticlibrary.a: yetanothercfile.o yacf.o $(AR) $(ARFLAGS) $@ $? Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: make falling over builtin rules ?

. For example, instead of using .cu.o and .cu, use .cuo and .cu. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Enhancement request: Watch source files for changes

several tries to get the behavior matching the user expectation Those are just the sort of items I would consider if this was my project; Paul and the other developers may have completely different criteria in mind, but I would be surprised if they didn't overlap some. Philip Guenther

Re: -include filename does not show correct dependency errors

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

Re: -include filename does not show correct dependency errors

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

Re: -include filename does not show correct dependency errors

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

Re: make --guaranteed-real-dry-run

incomplete data on it. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Bug in pattern rule parsing: how to handle?

: ${CONFIG_DEP}; ${CONFIG_COMMANDS} (The version using $(eval) and $(foreach) is just icky looking in my mind) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Bug in pattern rule parsing: how to handle?

when there's a pattern prerequisite, right? I mean, the example you gave at least has a sensical _possible_ interpretation, but this: foo %.c: %.c.real ; @: cp $ $@ doesn't, so make _has_ to detect and throw an error there. Philip Guenther

Re: Bug in pattern rule parsing: how to handle?

: foo ; @echo $@ will do the echo just once for a given pair of .a and .b files. How many times should it do it if there's a normal file in the target list? So I'm with you: either ban it, or warn that it's going away and ban it 'next time'. Philip Guenther

Re: possible bug in documentation for make

on 2002-10-03; 3.81 on 2006-04-01) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: reporting requirements

/non-compliant. Guessing what the other end meant is practically *banned* in many IETF protocols due to the horrible experiences of some early protocols. I recommend Paul Vixie's published papers about BIND and how the handle gracefully mentality resulted in security holes in DNS. Philip

Re: does not rebuild Makefile.in

you please show the actual command output and error messages and makefile contents? Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: $(eval) expansion within $(eval)

$(func3) endif endef $ make Here1: 1 Here2: 1 $ Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: [bug #20501] MAKEFLAGS += -rR doesn't turn off default suffix rules, variables

. As cute as being able to set -R from inside the makefile is, I just don't see it as a feature that's worth introducing *any* bugs over. I vote that Paul just change the info pages to document the current behavior. Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list

Re: Random Segmentation fault when run with -j n

been out for over 18 months. My guess is that as I calculate values for some variable only on fly so may be when run with -j option, two threads try to calculate/access the same variable and that causes a crash. GNU make does not use threads, so this explanation cannot be correct. Philip

Re: bug? $(warning)/$(error) evaluated from inside a comment in a 'define'?

with a tab then make sees them as normal parts of the commands and passes them to the shell...which then will often ignore them based on *its* rules.) Philip Guenther ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

  1   2   >