All,
I am a compiler expert, busy doing compiler optimization
invention, design, and implementation, and perhaps someday some of
the fruits of my inventions can, with my employer's permission, be
folded into gcc. in that light, it would be far better to the
community overall if I ca
Peter Lawrence wrote:
great if you want to see what was actually executed,
not so great if you want to figure out where in the make sources you
need to start looking,
both are realistic wants.
when things get as messy as gcc's makefiles, I'ld like to be able to see
both the before and after
However, I do see some value in an extension to support command-line
options that would, whenever executing a recipe, output the make-file
name and line number, along with $@ and maybe $? (or at least its
first few entries) - for example --debug=r (recipe) might enable this;
this would fit with
> the output I see from make is after all macro substitutions have been
> made, which can make it virtually impossible
> to recognize as far as where it came from in the original source
This, however, is an issue with how the make file is written.
It sounds like its recipes for commands are of f
Philip,
since your suggestion, I went back and re-read that
section of the manual and did find the
--print-directory option.Thank you. but, that's not the real point of
my email.
the output I see from make is after all macro substitutions have been
made, which can make it virt
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Peter Lawrence
wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> one thing I remember in detail about Sun's make, is that
>>> instead of writing a level number
>>>
>>> make[3]: ...
>>> make[2]: ...
>>> make[1]: ...
>>>
>>> it wrote out the di
On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
From: Peter Lawrence
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 07:41:49 -0700
Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
one thing I remember in detail about Sun's make, is that
instead of writing a level number
make[3]: ...
make[2]: ...
make[1]: ...
it wrote out the dir
> From: Peter Lawrence
> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 07:41:49 -0700
> Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
>
>one thing I remember in detail about Sun's make, is that
> instead of writing a level number
>
> make[3]: ...
> make[2]: ...
> make[1]: ...
>
> it wrote out the directory that the commands had
Paul,
one thing I remember in detail about Sun's make, is that
instead of writing a level number
make[3]: ...
make[2]: ...
make[1]: ...
it wrote out the directory that the commands had cd'ed to before
recursing (and maybe the file name, can't be sure any more)
make[foo/bar]: ...
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 21:09 -0700, Peter Lawrence wrote:
> make[3]: *** No rule to make target `real-install-headers-tar'. Stop.
This is printed when you've invoked make and the target you asked for on
the command line cannot be created (for example you ran "make foo" but
the makefile has no targ
Sirs,
in trying to debug a failing gcc build, it seems that the
real trouble is that there doesn't seem to be any easy way to figure
out what directory/file[line number] a make command comes from, for
example I see as output:
make[3]: *** No rule to make target `real-install-heade
11 matches
Mail list logo
