Re: strange issue with make cgit

2014-08-11 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 11:43 -0700, Gregory Fong wrote: When I select any of the other commits, the commit info is shown as expected. Not sure why these two have mysteriously decided not to work. Maybe the cgit cache got into a bad state? Hopefully someone can help get this sorted out. I

Re: Make does not throw an error for target without a recipe?

2014-06-26 Thread Paul Smith
On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 16:19 -0400, Patrick Donnelly wrote: Updating makefiles Considering target file 'test.mk'. Looking for an implicit rule for 'test.mk'. [...] Why is it trying to build target test.mk...??? See

Re: Make does not throw an error for target without a recipe?

2014-06-26 Thread Paul Smith
On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 16:19 -0400, Patrick Donnelly wrote: I'm bringing this problem up because targets are not being created (as expected) by implicit rules but I don't know this because make claims success. This part doesn't make sense to me; maybe you can provide more info here. An

Re: Make does not throw an error for target without a recipe?

2014-06-26 Thread Paul Smith
On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 17:00 -0400, Patrick Donnelly wrote: This is a little inconvenient when you're relying on implicit rules. e.g. %.o: %.c cc -o $@ $ %: %.o ld $@ $^ foo: bar.a Even if foo.c is missing, Make still succeeds. This is actually what I'm dealing with and I'd

Re: make -j 4 throws long list of compiler errors

2014-06-25 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 17:24 -0700, Renewal Computer Services wrote: make -j 4 (or whatever number, I use -j 12) is broken, with mingw-w64 a *nix-based project will cause a long list of compilation errors whereas without -j project will compile fine. No it's not. Your makefile is wrong.

Re: Problem with GNU Make (3.81, probably newer) with stacking --include-dir=...

2014-06-11 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:01 -0700, Corey Brenner wrote: I've run into a situation where I want to control the include dirs in a recursive make. I am adding include paths to recursive invocations via --include-dir=, when I find one which matches my criteria. However, GNU Make seems to be

Re: Problem with GNU Make (3.81, probably newer) with stacking --include-dir=...

2014-06-11 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 13:45 -0400, Paul Smith wrote: Unfortunately in older versions of make the option and argument are left as two separate words: $ echo 'a:;: $(MAKEFLAGS)' | make-3.81 -f- -I/usr/include -I/bin : I /usr/include -I /bin which makes it much more difficult to remove

Re: GNU Make 3.80 : Problems and Bugs

2014-05-28 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 14:29 +0530, chandrababu nallani wrote: Hi, Could you send me the link to get the known bugs and issues for GNU Make 3.80. Sorry, but we don't spend the effort to keep detailed information on this. You can look at the bugs that were listed as fixed in the GNU make

Re: -j on Tandem

2014-05-21 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 11:12 +, Van der Zaag, Paul wrote: We use your make utility on Tandem. Does the –j option have any effect, or is does it not on Tandem? I'm sorry but I have no experience with Tandem. The -j option will basically work on all systems. However, it works better on some

Re: Bug, or not? Pointer, please.

2014-05-01 Thread Paul Smith
On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 17:41 +0200, Houder wrote: Below, besides the specified target (bla), the output of make also outputs the name of the makefile (M) ... AS IF THE MAKEFILE IS A TARGET. Can anybody explain this to me? Thank you.

Re: make 4.0: archive rebuild resulted in 73 packages broken (help wanted)

2014-04-30 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 18:19 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: build-stamp: echo $@ build-arch: build-stamp $ make --version | head -n1 GNU Make 4.0 $ make -f detect.mk -qn build-arch; echo $? 2 This is definitely a bug in GNU make 4.0 in handling -q (note the -n is not relevant: you

Re: error reporting

2014-04-08 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 21:26 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: I am unable to reproduce this: Based on the offer of MSVC project files I would guess Rob is running on Windows. I expect this is a result of the buggy snprintf()/vsnprintf() implementations in the Windows MSVC compiler (well, by buggy I

Re: error reporting

2014-04-08 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 20:15 +, Rob Juergens wrote: Note that in Unix, vsnprintf() returns the TOTAL number of chars needed (add 1 for the null). If the output would overflow the buffer, then you would get a return value larger than the specified buffer size. In Windoze, vsnprintf()

Re: error reporting

2014-04-08 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 21:01 +, Rob Juergens wrote: Attached is a rewrite of the method vfmtconcat() in output.c. It seems to fix the problem. Thanks, but as Philip mentioned earlier I've completely rewritten the output.c file and callers of it so they use only C89 compliant functions (so no

Re: Test harness on VMS, running 511 tests, 60 tests failing.

2014-03-16 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 21:43 -0500, John E. Malmberg wrote: With that correction, I am back to 60 tests failing in 29 categories failing if I use the -keep option. You should never use -keep when invoking the full test suite. Using -keep will cause other tests to fail, on all platforms: it's

Re: [bug #41246] Allow to switch shell batch mode at runtime instead of build time

2014-03-02 Thread Paul Smith
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 10:53 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: I have no problems with your original patch. I think I said that right there and then. If Paul agrees, I will commit it. Paul? I'll reiterate my position that (a) I've seen nothing showing that it's inherently impossible for make to

Re: Bug-make Digest, Vol 135, Issue 17

2014-02-24 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 18:50 +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: Yes. But of course for any bigger C/C++ project, although a rather specific usecase, it makes up the majority of the source to parse. _If_ LibreOffice wouldnt already do some tricks, parsing the 13GB of generated dependencies would

Re: Bug-make Digest, Vol 135, Issue 17

2014-02-24 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 18:51 +, Tim Murphy wrote: On 24 February 2014 18:33, Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org wrote: I would definitely want this to be totally invisible to the user and not require any magic in makefiles (so no special include operator, etc.) Basically it should either be so

Re: [PATCH] output.c: Fix memory stomp when need==fmtbuf.size

2014-02-04 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:33 +, Ray Donnelly wrote: I can't see it in the git repository yet. .. am I being too impatient? Sorry, it's committed in my local repo at home but I haven't pushed. I'll do that tonight. ___ Bug-make mailing list

Re: [bug #41246] Allow to switch shell batch mode at runtime instead of build time

2014-02-04 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 18:54 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: Another issue is with backslashes in paths. For example: $ cat EOF foo.mk foo: grep foo foo\\bar EOF (Note the is just there to trigger sh -c) This executes sh -c grep foo foo\\bar, which fails with:

Re: [PATCH] output.c: Fix memory stomp when need==fmtbuf.size

2014-02-02 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 16:35 +, Ray Donnelly wrote: I missed a few assert cases in the previous patch. Please find a fixed version attached. I applied this change. Thanks! ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org

Re: [bug #41246] Allow to switch shell batch mode at runtime instead of build time

2014-01-31 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 16:55 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: An option as command line argument, or as a special target as the original patch did? The former, as Paul objected to the latter. I didn't object, per se. I just prefer my tools to DTRT in all cases without me having to use any

Re: [PATCH] Refactor and merge child_execute_job() code

2014-01-30 Thread Paul Smith
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 19:29 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: I will review the patch some more in a day or two. (And I hope Paul will as well.) Yes, definitely, but it won't be until the weekend I expect. Life is intruding on hacking this month. ___

Re: $(file) function bug or not?

2014-01-28 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 09:52 -0800, David Boyce wrote: I think the headline here is that $(file) is analogous to $(shell) in that it's intended specifically for use _outside_ of recipes. If you find yourself using either one in a recipe it's probably a sign you're on the wrong track. I'm not

Re: [PATCH] output.c: Fix memory stomp when need==fmtbuf.size

2014-01-27 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 16:35 +, Ray Donnelly wrote: I missed a few assert cases in the previous patch. Please find a fixed version attached. Thanks Ray; I'm utterly swamped for the last week or so with real life but I should have a bit more free time later this week; I'll check out your fix.

Re: win32 compilation of make 4.0 source code‏

2014-01-27 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 16:22 -0800, Mark Brown wrote: That example method is a device to perform this .FEATURES test without inserting it into an existing Makefile. The syntax errors I was seeing were occurring when attempting to insert this test into an existing Makefile, full of Targets and

Re: win32 compilation of make 4.0 source code‏

2014-01-24 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 11:03 -0800, Mark Brown wrote: I had a make.exe 3.80 and it had problems with else ifeq constructs, so that forced me to seek a more recent version for win32. Yes that version didn't support it. You can look at the latest NEWS file for info on what appeared when:

Re: Missing po files in GIT

2014-01-14 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 11:00 +0400, Pavel Fedin wrote: Hello! I am trying to rebuild GIT version of Make, however .po files are missing in the repository. Is this intentional ? I have copied them over from my 4.0-2 archive. But where are they originally stored ? The PO files are

Re: [bug #40639] GNU Make with profiling information

2014-01-14 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 11:58 +0200, Eddy Petrișor wrote: I understand the interest in the amount of time a given job takes to run, but I guess I don't understand the need for a start time offset at all. Isn't it sufficient to record the start time of a job, then when it's complete show

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

2014-01-14 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 06:56 +0100, Christian Eggers wrote: Am Montag, 13. Januar 2014, 17:20:43 schrieb Paul Smith: On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 22:23 +0100, Christian Eggers wrote: In Makefile 2 my intention was to state that foo.o depends on some generated header which must be generated first

Re: win32 compilation of make 4.0 source code‏

2014-01-13 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 18:21 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: From: Mark Brown mkbrown_...@hotmail.com Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 06:04:24 -0800 I was able to compile the make 4.0 source code downloaded from the gnu make site using Visual C++ 2005 under Windows 7 64 (generated 0 errors, 259

Re: win32 compilation of make 4.0 source code‏

2014-01-13 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 19:37 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: On Windows, GNU make can be compiled in a quite a number of different ways. It would be helpful if you gave us an idea of which method you used. He said that: he used Microsoft Visual C++ version 2005. But I meant, how? Through

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

2014-01-13 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 22:23 +0100, Christian Eggers wrote: In Makefile 2 my intention was to state that foo.o depends on some generated header which must be generated first (might be in another rule). But I didn't want to change the be behaviour if foo.o cannot be built because e.g. there's no

Re: output from $(error) lost with output sync

2014-01-13 Thread Paul Smith
I fixed this one locally a couple of days ago; sorry for not pushing. I'll do that shortly. I don't think this change is sufficient because if output_sync != make_sync then make_sync is never dumped with the change below. On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 06:21 +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote: Oliver Kiddle

Re: [bug #40639] GNU Make with profiling information

2014-01-11 Thread Paul Smith
Sorry, I've been mostly away from my systems recently. On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 13:28 +0200, Eddy Petrișor wrote: Thanks for clarifying this. Could you please confirm if the general direction of the the is OK in the latest patch I sent? I will take a look. What it is in scope and what I would

Re: [bug #40639] GNU Make with profiling information

2014-01-11 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 13:28 +0200, Eddy Petrișor wrote: Could you please confirm if the general direction of the the is OK in the latest patch I sent? Conceptually it seems OK. I'm still not jazzed about having any more than one output format, and I'd prefer that format to be in a more-or-less

Re: [bug #40639] GNU Make with profiling information

2013-12-15 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2013-12-15 at 13:38 +, Tim Murphy wrote: I suppose I'm skirting around saying that I think gnu make needs an output format in the same way that valgrind has --xml=yes. I'm not an XML fan really - JSON might be an alternative. It isn't your problem to provide such a mechanism and

Re: mingw-w64 build breaks and warnings

2013-11-27 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 19:39 -0800, Stephan T. Lavavej wrote: #1: OSN (fatal, NILF, ^ Fixed, thanks. #2: w32err.c: In function 'map_windows32_error_to_string': w32err.c:70:3: warning: passing argument 2 of 'fatal' makes integer from pointer without a cast [enabled by

Re: mingw-w64 build breaks and warnings

2013-11-27 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 12:21 +, Ray Donnelly wrote: Instead of adding the MS-specific %Ix, could you not add (in the batch file) the define of __MINGW_USE_ANSI_STDIO=1, otherwise I suspect you'd be breaking people who prefer the stdio a bit more ansi (mingw-builds for example). I went with

Re: VMS port

2013-11-25 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 13:48 +0400, Pavel Fedin wrote: I am restarting work on spawn-patch for Cygwin. Actually, i have the very first version working, but want to try to do some face-lift and get rid of some #ifdef's. My first question is: is VMS port maintained, or dead long ago ? The VMS

Re: [bug #40226] Weird failure on Windows with OUTPUT_SYNC_TARGET

2013-11-24 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2013-11-24 at 12:35 +0200, Eddy Petrișor wrote: Since you just worked on this, and the new type overwrites in case of repetition, does it make sense to overwrite instead of error? I think that for profiling this type of behaviour would be better. Sorry, but I didn't understand that.

Re: make-4.0 allows empty ARFLAGS to be passed to ar

2013-10-21 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 17:36 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: I haven't even figured out where quiet-command is located. I'm only an integration monkey, checking that everything in our distro (BLFS) will build with make-4.0. Will take a look. Please see my second email, from earlier today. Based on

Re: make-4.0 allows empty ARFLAGS to be passed to ar

2013-10-21 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 18:03 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: 2. Unfortunately, rules.mak *is* adding -rR to the MAKEFLAGS - # Don't use implicit rules or variables # we have explicit rules for everything MAKEFLAGS += -rR I'll attach rules.mak. Is this a qemu bug which just happened to work in

Re: make-4.0 allows empty ARFLAGS to be passed to ar

2013-10-21 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 16:02 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: # command line ARFLAGS = So this tells us that the empty value is being set from the command line. I then ran it in the directory where the build fails (dtc/) - # makefile (from 'Makefile', line 51) ARFLAGS = rc This is not

Re: make-4.0 allows empty ARFLAGS to be passed to ar

2013-10-21 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 18:48 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: Thanks. Is it OK if I quote this whole reply to the qemu devs ? Of course. This mailing list is publicly archived; quote away. Or point them to the thread: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-make/2013-10/msg00151.html

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

2013-10-20 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2013-10-20 at 20:15 -0700, David Boyce wrote: Paul. Thank you very much! This means I'll be able to make professional use the many features and bugfixes which have arrived post-3.81 at some point. Given the flurry of other fit-and-finish fixes lately, would it be safe to assume

Re: make-4.0 allows empty ARFLAGS to be passed to ar

2013-10-20 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 04:05 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: With GNU Make 4.0 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu I am unable to build qemu 1.6.{0,1} because it fails with AR libfdt/libfdt.a ar: two different operation options specified Makefile:234: recipe for target 'libfdt/libfdt.a' failed

Re: load on Windows

2013-10-05 Thread Paul Smith
On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 16:34 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: EXPORT int mk_test_gmk_setup (const gmk_floc *flocp) { gmk_add_function (hello_world, hello_world, 0, 255, 0); ^^^ Make functions cannot have the '_' character in their names, so it seems.

Re: make check under Cygwin

2013-10-05 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 11:30 +0200, Denis Excoffier wrote: Still experimenting 'make check' with Cygwin (without the spawn-patch, with --disable-load): 1) In test_driver.pl, line 486 (look for Test returned), a comparison of $code against the value -1 is performed. However, 3 lines above the

Re: make check under Cygwin (3.99.93)

2013-10-01 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 11:04 +0200, Denis Excoffier wrote: Hello, Thank you for this new RC. I have tested make-3.99.93 under cygwin 32 bits with --disable-load (and without the spawn-patch). Several items that i had reported in

Re: GNU make 3.99.93 release candidate is available

2013-10-01 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 10:21 +0200, Stephan Beal wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org wrote: Note, no changes to translatable strings were introduced in this release. i'm not sure if this counts as a translatable string, but i'm seeing

Re: make check on darwin

2013-09-30 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 22:16 +0200, Denis Excoffier wrote: On 2013-09-22 06:50, Paul Smith wrote: Just curious: did you build with --disable-load because something failed otherwise? Or just because you wanted to? I didn't investigate the errors produced with --enable-load. Here they are: I

GNU make 3.99.93 release candidate is available

2013-09-30 Thread Paul Smith
Hi all. The fourth release candidate, 3.99.93, for the next version of GNU make is now available on alpha: ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/make/make-3.99.93.tar.bz2 81e1f8693c50bf485382c31f0e827d91 ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/make/make-3.99.93.tar.gz fc854c46fb60d8ffb1066dc46026aa4c There are a number

Re: [bug #33138] .PARLLELSYNC enhancement with patch

2013-09-29 Thread Paul Smith
As always thanks for your thorough testing Frank. On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 20:41 +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote: Paul Smith wrote: On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 14:47 +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote: Paul Smith wrote: I didn't fix it this way. Instead I used the existing MAKE_RESTART

Re: GNU make 3.99.92 release candidate is available

2013-09-25 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 13:51 +0200, Boris Kolpackov wrote: Paul D. Smith psm...@gnu.org writes: I'm not sure I fully understood the situation. This comment makes it sound like same version of make (same code) is 50% slower on the new system. Is that what you meant? Yes, the same make

Re: GNU make 3.99.92 release candidate is available

2013-09-23 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 11:02 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: There's also another problem: you added a test script dash-w, where we already had a dash-W. On Windows, these two map to the same file, so git overwrites the same file, and the file is always marked as modified. Please rename one of

Re: [bug #33138] .PARLLELSYNC enhancement with patch

2013-09-21 Thread Paul Smith
On Sat, 2013-09-21 at 07:28 +, Edward Welbourne wrote: I've never understood why someone would use $(shell ...) in a recipe... I mean, the recipe will be run in the shell!! I remember we once had a library where the command-line to the archiver was too long (about a quarter megabyte,

Re: make check on darwin

2013-09-21 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 23:46 +0200, Denis Excoffier wrote: I have configured with --disable-load. I had to apply the patch below (self explanatory i think) for 'make check' to return with no error. Moreover: 1) when configured with --disable-job-server, the tests in features/parallelism are

Re: GNU make 3.99.91 release candidate is available

2013-09-17 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 10:23 +0200, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: Unfortunately I don't have a copy of Sun Studio and I don't have any SPARC hardware. I'll need someone with access to these to assist. That is no problem. There are already a number of GNU projects that use our buildfarm to

Re: Suffix rules with dependencies

2013-09-16 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 08:48 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: In this thread: http://lists.gnutls.org/pipermail/gnutls-devel/2013-September/006453.html and specifically in this message and its followups: http://lists.gnutls.org/pipermail/gnutls-devel/2013-September/006460.html there's

Re: GNU make 3.99.91 release candidate is available

2013-09-16 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 20:52 +0200, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: /opt/SUNWspro/bin/cc -D_REENTRANT -pthreads -I/opt/csw/include/guile/2.0 -I/opt/csw/include -xO3 -m32 -xarch=sparc -m32 -xarch=sparc -L/opt/csw/lib -o make ar.o arscan.o commands.o default.o dir.o expand.o file.o function.o

Re: [bug #33138] .PARLLELSYNC enhancement with patch

2013-09-13 Thread Paul Smith
On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 04:19 -0400, Paul Smith wrote: I think there may still be some change needed for directory tracking for the -Orecurse mode. If we're collecting output for an entire recursive make invocation we don't need enter/leave notifications around each individual target or line

Re: [bug #39943] Add an alternative parsing mode that regards space and tab as identical tokens

2013-09-04 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 18:15 -0400, David Boyce wrote: On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Paul D. Smith invalid.nore...@gnu.org wrote: Follow-up Comment #1, bug #39943 (project make): IMO _any_ editor which automatically replaces TABs with spaces should never be

Re: [PATCH] Use spawn() in GNU Make on Cygwin, updated

2013-08-16 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 20:59 +0400, Pavel Fedin wrote: Friday, August 16, 2013, 19:19:58 you wrote: Also, when I'm making changes to the exec() code I don't spend a lot of time worrying about spawn() so it is possible that it will be broken from time to time and, in fact, I think you

Re: [PATCH] Use spawn() in GNU Make on Cygwin, updated

2013-08-16 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 13:30 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 01:12:28PM -0400, Paul Smith wrote: On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 20:59 +0400, Pavel Fedin wrote: Friday, August 16, 2013, 19:19:58 you wrote: Also, when I'm making changes to the exec() code I don't spend a lot

Re: [PATCH] Use spawn() in GNU Make on Cygwin, updated

2013-08-16 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 22:52 +0400, Pavel Fedin wrote: Exactly, hence the reason for my question. I'm not interested in adding this if, when it's enabled, things don't work correctly. On the other hand I'm not sure it's not possible to get things working correctly. Or, perhaps it's

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Do not use DOS paths on Cygwin

2013-08-05 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 10:56 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: Then maybe really add something like --enable-dos-paths which defaults to no on Cygwin and Yes on MinGW ? ac_cv_dos_paths=no configure works just fine and does not require a command-line switch. If this is a common/necessary

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Do not use DOS paths on Cygwin

2013-07-31 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 10:37 +0400, Pavel Fedin wrote: Looks like, if you want DOS paths, and running under Cygwin, an explicit conversion has to be performed on getcwd() result using cygwin_conv_path(). However i did not test this further because i follow official Cygwin way of doing things,

Re: [PATCH1/2] Use spawn() on Cygwin

2013-07-30 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 18:39 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: In general, I feel it's wrong to do this: Cygwin is a Posix platform, so it should be using the Posix code, to be as compatible with other Posix platforms as possible. EMX is not a Posix platform, so using its code will likely make the

Re: [bug #37703] job starts before dependency

2013-07-20 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 10:43 -0400, Jay Lawrence wrote: My bad, I see that patch now, please disregard... In your comment below you mentioned you'd tried the latest source but it still failed. I believe I fixed this bug with a commit in April. Can you reproduce the issue with the latest source

Re: Make run in parallel mode with output redirected to a regular file can randomly drop output lines

2013-05-27 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2013-05-27 at 20:13 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: and if so, does it guarantee non-conflicting writes? Not sure I understand what you are asking here. Can you elaborate? The original issue reported is that if you do something like this: make -j make.out and your make environment

Re: Make run in parallel mode with output redirected to a regular file can randomly drop output lines

2013-05-26 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2013-05-26 at 22:05 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote: On 05/26/2013 09:57 PM, Paul Smith wrote: [SNIP] Might be worthwhile checking the FreeBSD code for their make, to see if they do something like this. Nope, Frank was right: when run in parallel mode, FreeBSD make

Re: GNU make release candidate 3.99.90 available

2013-05-26 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 19:06 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: I still don't want to add back the pointer to the struct. Memory usage by GNU make is becoming a sore spot, especially as larger and larger build systems start to move to non-recursive make. If necessary we'll need to make the list

Re: Bug-make post from cev...@gmail.com requires approval

2013-05-23 Thread Paul Smith
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 04:10 -0400, bug-make-ow...@gnu.org wrote: define PROGRAM_template = This syntax is not available in GNU make 3.81. It was introduced in GNU make 3.82. Thus the PROGRAM_template variable is not defined, and expands to the empty string, and thus your eval does nothing.

Re: [bug #26596] MAKEFLAGS documentation tweak

2013-05-23 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 22:09 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote: On 05/22/2013 06:56 PM, Paul Smith wrote: I've reworked the MFLAGS / MAKEFLAGS generation to be more regular and rigorous yesterday, for 4.0, and to preserve _some_ backward-compat; I had thought about this issue when I did so

Re: GNU make release candidate 3.99.90 available

2013-05-20 Thread Paul Smith
On Sat, 2013-05-18 at 14:20 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 04:12:15 -0400 Hi all. The first release candidate for the next release of GNU make, GNU make 4.0, is now available for download: Paul, can you please add 4.0 to the list

Re: GNU make release candidate 3.99.90 available

2013-05-20 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 19:42 +0200, Denis Excoffier wrote: Compared with make-3.82, the new make-3.99.90 breaks those Makefiles, like in tiff-v3.6.1 (rather old i know, before 2003 at least), that use the construction: make -${MAKEFLAGS} Hrm. This is actually specifically discouraged by the

Re: GNU make release candidate 3.99.90 available

2013-05-20 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 22:35 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: When a dynamic extension is being remade, it is unloaded by calling unload_file. The latter looks up its argument in a linked list of loaded objects. Now, unload_file is called with file-name as its argument; is it 100% sure that this

Re: GNU make release candidate 3.99.90 available

2013-05-20 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 11:09 -0400, Boris Kolpackov wrote: This is because in the current algorithm, every single time we do an implicit rule search and compute possible target and dependency names they are all added to the string cache, even if they are deemed to be useless and not needed

Re: [bug #33138] .PARLLELSYNC enhancement with patch

2013-05-05 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2013-05-05 at 04:37 +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote: COMMANDS_RECURSE _does_ mean to recurse. The reason for the '+' prerequisite is to tell make that this line, even though it may not look like it, will run a recursive make. OK, let me just say that the meaning of recursive may

Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse

2013-05-05 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2013-05-05 at 00:44 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote: The test 'features/output-sync' now fails for me: Test timed out after 6 seconds Error running /storage/home/stefano/src/gnu/make/tests/../make \ (expected 0; got 14): /storage/home/stefano/src/gnu/make/tests/../make \

Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse

2013-05-05 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2013-05-05 at 11:11 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote: Sorry to add this only now, but I realized the failure is only reproducible if I run the testsuite with make -j, as in make -j8 check; and even in that case, the failure is racy. With a bare make check, things work for me as well.

Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option)

2013-05-05 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2013-05-05 at 19:36 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: However, I wonder what was the reason for splitting the definition of GMK_EXPORT in two, and putting each part in a different file. Well, because the gnumake.h file is intended to be installed into the user's /usr/include or similar, and

Output sync completed (?)

2013-05-05 Thread Paul Smith
Hi all. I've recently pushed changes to solve the last open issues that I'm aware of with the --output-sync feature: * If command line printing is not suppressed (@ is not used) the command line is attached to the output. * Extraneous enter/leave lines are not printed any

Re: Another issue with -O?

2013-05-04 Thread Paul Smith
On Sat, 2013-05-04 at 09:57 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org Cc: reinp...@win.tue.nl, bug-make@gnu.org Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 16:51:47 -0400 I think enabling [-O] by default will be a no-brainer if/when we come up with a way to get it to produce the same

Re: [bug #33138] .PARLLELSYNC enhancement with patch

2013-05-04 Thread Paul Smith
On Sat, 2013-05-04 at 08:57 +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote: I shouldn't have written that. :-( Shortly afterwards, I found a bug or perhaps two: foo: @echo foo +@echo bar (a) % make -Ojob foo bar foo (b) % make -Otarget bar foo As you see, (a) -Ojob writes foo

Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option)

2013-05-04 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 12:55 -0400, Paul Smith wrote: Suppose we do this: if we're about to invoke a line marked recursive and we're in -Otarget mode, then before we run it we'll show the current contents of the temp file (using the normal synchronized output function). I've implemented

Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option

2013-05-03 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 09:50 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org Cc: stefano.lattar...@gmail.com, bug-make@gnu.org Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 16:21:36 -0400 The one and only difference between them is that when running a recursive make, -Otarget WILL NOT capture

possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option)

2013-05-03 Thread Paul Smith
I have a solution for this problem that I think will work well, and will be simple to implement. Suppose we do this: if we're about to invoke a line marked recursive and we're in -Otarget mode, then before we run it we'll show the current contents of the temp file (using the normal synchronized

Re: feature request: parallel builds feature

2013-05-02 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 20:38 -0700, Jim Michaels wrote: again, problem solved with what I proposed. think. separate shell window for each job. You can do that today by just writing your recipes such that they start a screen session or xterm or whatever. Those tools allocate and manage their

Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option

2013-05-02 Thread Paul Smith
Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org writes: If you want different behavior you can change your rule to use + on the two echo lines, so that they're also considered recursive and not saved up. If I do that, the echo from rec1 and rec2 mix up: D:\gnu\make-3.82.90_GIT_2013-05-01gnumake -f

Re: Another issue with -O?

2013-05-02 Thread Paul Smith
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 20:30 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: With this simple Makefile: all: @echo foobar! true Yes this is a bug. I thought of this while we were having our discussion yesterday. Unfortunately in all our tests we were using @ to silence make's output of the

Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option

2013-05-02 Thread Paul Smith
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 20:24 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: The desired results in my original use case are that the output of remaking each target is shown as one chunk in the order in which it is expected, i.e. from the first command to the last. Remaking a target, a.k.a. recipe in this context

Re: feature request: parallel builds feature

2013-05-01 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 17:20 -0700, Jim Michaels wrote: I wasn't digressing. I was explaining the point. the concept I am trying to present as a solution to the problem of making parallel stdin for --jobs in gnu make (which currenty doesn't work and is I guess single-threaded) is to make a

Re: Change in $(MFLAGS) format breaks automake-generated rules

2013-05-01 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 00:59 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote: # With make 3.82, compiled from official tarball: $ make -f- 'all:; @echo $(MFLAGS)' -I none -I none # With development version of make: $ make -f- 'all:; @echo $(MFLAGS)' -I none -Inone I think MFLAGS is

Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option

2013-05-01 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 10:39 -0400, Paul Smith wrote: On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 16:04 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote: On 04/30/2013 03:37 PM, Paul Smith wrote: Just to be clear, you're saying that the testsuite runs as one long operation, updating one target, and the recipe invokes one test

Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option

2013-05-01 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 18:26 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: You forgot to make the same change in the WINDOWS32 branch. I did that in commit a87ff20. Sorry, I missed that. This should be fixed now. Those who use recursive makefiles and were seeing annoying delays in output with -O, please

Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option

2013-05-01 Thread Paul Smith
On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 22:08 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: Yes. But I thought the change was about -Otarget, not -Ojob. Stefano was complaining about a plain -O, so -Ojob is not what was his problem. Yes, it is about -Otarget. As I said, I added -Ojob output just for completeness. The

Re: Duplicated Entering/Leaving directory when new option -O is used

2013-04-30 Thread Paul Smith
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 11:19 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote: The above has been obtained with GNU make built from latest git version (commit 'moved-to-git-46-g19a69ba'). Yes. I know the email lately has been daunting but if you wade through it you'll see a number of emails discussing this

Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option

2013-04-30 Thread Paul Smith
Just to be clear, you're saying that the testsuite runs as one long operation, updating one target, and the recipe invokes one test script, right? I can see how that environment might be problematic for this new feature. It works much better for lots of smaller targets. However, you could avoid

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >