Re: Building Documentation

On Sun, 2020-05-24 at 21:10 -0500, Pete Dietl wrote: > Does anyone have advice on how to build the web documentation? > I tried running `make gendocs` but I get errors like: > > cvs -d :pserver:anonym...@cvs.sv.gnu.org:/web/www co 'www/server/standards' > > cvs [checkout aborted]: connect to

Building Documentation

Does anyone have advice on how to build the web documentation? I tried running `make gendocs` but I get errors like: cvs -d :pserver:anonym...@cvs.sv.gnu.org:/web/www co 'www/server/standards' cvs [checkout aborted]: connect to cvs.sv.gnu.org(209.51.188.81):2401 failed: Connection refused

Re: math expressions (was: Re: Tail call elimination)

On Sun, 2020-05-24 at 14:09 -0500, Pete Dietl wrote: > > I think, as I mentioned before, that someone (I guess that's you > > :)) should write up an actual proposal (maybe, for example, the > > start of a new manual section) that can be examined and commented > > on. > > Challenge accepted! What

[bug #58435] make 4.3 is not c89 compliant

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #58435 (project make): perhaps the maintainers of gnulib ought to be notified of this also... gnu's coding standards state that c89 should be the default targeted c standard, and c99 functionality should be checked for if used. if gnulib is using c99 features, and is

Re: math expressions (was: Re: Tail call elimination)

> I think, as I mentioned before, that someone (I guess that's you :)) > should write up an actual proposal (maybe, for example, the start of a > new manual section) that can be examined and commented on. Endless > streams of mailing list responses quickly give diminishing returns. My >

[bug #57962] make attempts to execute a directory found on PATH

Follow-up Comment #13, bug #57962 (project make): Thanks for pointing that out! This has been fixed in the findprog-in module in gnulib now as well. ___ Reply to this item at:

Re: math expressions (was: Re: Tail call elimination)

On Sat, 2020-05-23 at 15:43 -0500, Pete Dietl wrote: > > I understand what Tim is saying but I still prefer to have a single > > function. I want to reduce the "namespace leakage" for these > > capabilities. If we decide to add more operations to this in the > > future I don't want it colliding

Re: Maybe a bug in make manual. https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Overriding-Makefiles

I think the text is as intended. The previous paragraph talks about the -t, -n and -q switches as being treated similarly. The example could use any but has to pick one. From: Bug-make on behalf of 牛啊 <285430...@qq.com> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 07:26 To:

Maybe a bug in make manual. https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Overriding-Makefiles

https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Overriding-Makefiles The last 2 paragraph of chapter [3.5 How Makefiles are Remade ] Original Manul However, on occasion you might actually wish to prevent updating of even the makefiles. You can do this by specifying the makefiles as goals

[bug #58435] make 4.3 is not c89 compliant

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #58435 (project make): This code was introduced when a local implementation of strerror was replaced with gnulib's one. commit 4d00ceba264a9fd04241dcd2685526ce64c1346b Author: Paul Smith Date: Sat Jul 13 08:34:45 2019 -0400 Switch to the gnulib version of

[bug #58435] make 4.3 is not c89 compliant

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #58435 (project make): i probably worded the title badly. the fact that gnu make requires c99 features is not a problem, but if it does require c99, then this should be clear and the configure script should be checking for c99 support and adding flags if necessary.