Re: [PATCH] doc: note that $(wildcard) is implemented in terms of glob(3)

2021-12-03 Thread Martin Dorey
It was documented but only in NEWS: martind@sirius:~/download/make$ sgrep wildcard | grep sort ./NEWS:179:* All wildcard expansion within GNU make, including $(wildcard ...), will sort ./NEWS:426: results from wildcard expansions, use the $(sort ...) function to request ./ChangeLog.3:1586: * N

Re: [PATCH] doc: note that $(wildcard) is implemented in terms of glob(3)

2021-12-03 Thread Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
On Fri, Dec 03 2021, Paul Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 11:08 +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> The motivation for this patch is that I've seen code like this in the >> wild: >> >> FILES = $(sort $(wildcard t*.sh)) >> >> I thought that it would be documented that that sort of

[bug #60798] Make does not compile with GCC 11.1.0

2021-12-03 Thread Jouke Witteveen
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #60798 (project make): I expanded the patch a bit to also silence a _maybe-uninitialized_ error. With GCC11, there is now only one warning remaining, which is the _return-local-addr_ warning in src/read.c:2534 (find_percent_cached). The code is correct, but GCC fails to

Re: [PATCH] doc: note that $(wildcard) is implemented in terms of glob(3)

2021-12-03 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 11:08 +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > The motivation for this patch is that I've seen code like this in the > wild: > > FILES = $(sort $(wildcard t*.sh)) > > I thought that it would be documented that that sort of thing was > redundant, but I didn't find any ment

Re: [PATCH] doc: note that $(wildcard) is implemented in terms of glob(3)

2021-12-03 Thread Jouke Witteveen
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 3:19 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > The motivation for this patch is that I've seen code like this in the > wild: > > FILES = $(sort $(wildcard t*.sh)) > > I thought that it would be documented that that sort of thing was > redundant, but I didn't find any mention

Re: [PATCH] doc: note that $(wildcard) is implemented in terms of glob(3)

2021-12-03 Thread Dmitry Goncharov
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 9:19 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > The $subject isn't strictly true, as the it's implemented in terms of > MatchFirst() on Amiga, but that's obscure enough to not be noted in > the manual Then the manual will be lying to the users of amiga, right? > and in any case

[bug #48643] Irrelevant targets can confuse make on which pattern rule to select.

2021-12-03 Thread Dmitry Goncharov
Follow-up Comment #25, bug #48643 (project make): Let us list the options 1. keep compat search enabled by default and silent. 2. introduce a warning message when make begins compat search. 3. introduce a flag to disable compat search. 4. have compat disabled by default and introduce a flag to ena

[PATCH] doc: note that $(wildcard) is implemented in terms of glob(3)

2021-12-03 Thread Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
The $subject isn't strictly true, as the it's implemented in terms of MatchFirst() on Amiga, but that's obscure enough to not be noted in the manual, and in any case the tests added in 0d366b66 (* Added the test suite to the main distribution., 1999-09-14) show that the output is sorted on all plat

Re: [bug #60798] Make does not compile with GCC 11.1.0

2021-12-03 Thread Jouke Witteveen
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:26 PM Edward Welbourne wrote: > > Jouke Witteveen (3 December 2021 13:22) wrote: > > The next warning I get (GCC11) is a _return-local-addr_ warning in > > src/read.c:2534 (find_percent_cached). Maybe GCC doesn't recognize alloca > > as a > > heap allocation? Just guessin

Re: [bug #60798] Make does not compile with GCC 11.1.0

2021-12-03 Thread Edward Welbourne
Jouke Witteveen (3 December 2021 13:22) wrote: > The next warning I get (GCC11) is a _return-local-addr_ warning in > src/read.c:2534 (find_percent_cached). Maybe GCC doesn't recognize alloca as a > heap allocation? Just guessing; this warning was not obvious to me. alloca() is not a heap allocati

[bug #60798] Make does not compile with GCC 11.1.0

2021-12-03 Thread Jouke Witteveen
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #60798 (project make): I couldn't find any signs of GCC becoming clever enough to detect why this code is correct. Minor code changes can silence the _stringop-overflow_ warnings. The next warning I get (GCC11) is a _return-local-addr_ warning in src/read.c:2534 (find_pe