Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes

2017-06-19 Thread SF Markus Elfring
>> Does such a feedback indicate that would like to look also into the >> corresponding development repository? > > No. At least I don't have time to review an entire development environment. Such a choice is also fine. > If you post the set of rules responsible for creating those files > in t

Re: Checking file generation for a test script

2017-06-19 Thread SF Markus Elfring
> It would have been generated if you would have called make with a command > like: elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Bau> LANG=C make --no-builtin-rules -f ../rule-check2.make MOTD.log make: *** No rule to make target 'MOTD.log'. Stop. > LANG=C make --no-builtin-rules -f ../rule-check2.make MOTD.log

[bug #51266] "make -p" erroneously prints "+=" instead of ":="

2017-06-19 Thread Chris Metcalf
URL: Summary: "make -p" erroneously prints "+=" instead of ":=" Project: make Submitted by: cmetcalf Submitted on: Mon 19 Jun 2017 03:56:41 PM UTC Severity: 3 - Normal It

[bug #51267] Improve error handling after a special command

2017-06-19 Thread Markus Elfring
URL: Summary: Improve error handling after a special command Project: make Submitted by: elfring Submitted on: Mon 19 Jun 2017 06:08:34 PM CEST Severity: 3 - Normal Item

Re: Checking file generation for a test script

2017-06-19 Thread Henrik Carlqvist
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:20:23 +0200 SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > It would have been generated if you would have called make with a > > command like: > > elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Bau> LANG=C make --no-builtin-rules -f > ../rule-check2.make MOTD.log make: *** No rule to make target > 'MOTD.log'. S

[bug #51269] Reusing data from targets for prerequisites

2017-06-19 Thread Markus Elfring
URL: Summary: Reusing data from targets for prerequisites Project: make Submitted by: elfring Submitted on: Mon 19 Jun 2017 07:34:22 PM CEST Severity: 3 - Normal Item Gro

Re: [bug #51267] Improve error handling after a special command

2017-06-19 Thread Henrik Carlqvist
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:08:35 -0400 (EDT) Markus Elfring wrote: > The semicolon indicates at the end that the return value is ignored > there. I imagine that further data processing should usually only be > performed if this command succeeded. > Would you like to improve the exception handling for

Re: [bug #51267] Improve error handling after a special command

2017-06-19 Thread Paul Smith
On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 19:45 +0200, Henrik Carlqvist wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:08:35 -0400 (EDT) > Markus Elfring wrote: > > The semicolon indicates at the end that the return value is ignored > > there. I imagine that further data processing should usually only > > be performed if this comma

Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes

2017-06-19 Thread SF Markus Elfring
>> Would you like to add any more advice to this aspect? > > Only if you have a specific question. I have got another software development concern. The section “Canceling implicit rules” of the documentation mentions something about the omission of recipes (or do they become “empty”?). https://w

Re: Checking file generation for a test script

2017-06-19 Thread SF Markus Elfring
>> My pattern example does not work with the current make software in the >> way I hoped would be occasionally convenient. > > No it does not. Did you read my entire previous answer? Yes. - I replied to it twice with different information. Regards, Markus ___