On Wed, 2022-01-12 at 14:22 -0900, Britton Kerin wrote:
> > You can see that this example mimics your .silent example.
> > Your makefile provided a prerequisite to .SILENT. Make then knows
> > that .SILENT has a prerequisite.
>
> I agree that it's consistent syntax, but semantically it's bad.
On Sun, 2022-01-09 at 20:02 -0500, Joe Filion wrote:
> If interested, I found another similar construct in another area of
> the code. Don’t worry, this appears to be the last one.
>
> On line 557 of implicit.c:
> p = strchr (nptr, '%');
> nptr is a const pointer, but p is used
On 1/17/2022 1:20 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2022-01-09 at 20:02 -0500, Joe Filion wrote:
If interested, I found another similar construct in another area of
the code. Don’t worry, this appears to be the last one.
On line 557 of implicit.c:
p = strchr (nptr, '%');
nptr is
Update of bug #61226 (project make):
Item Group: Bug => Enhancement
Summary: A regression prevents generation of missing included
dependency files. => Missing included files that have rules don't show as an
error
Follow-up Comment #9, bug #61226 (project make):
For now I decided to put back the original behavior (revert the main.c
changes). I will leave this issue open to think about how to best introduce a
backward-incompatible change that might help in this situation.
I really don't like the idea of
On Thu, 2022-01-13 at 23:31 +0100, Jouke Witteveen wrote:
> I would like to draw attention to this patch again, since without
> it the intcmp function is misbehaving.
Thanks for reminding me: somehow the original got deleted from my inbox
without being applied. I've now applied it to my Git repo
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #61763 (project make):
Unfortunately the glob.c that comes from GNU make was copied from gnulib and
isn't really maintained by GNU make. Doubly-unfortunately the glob.c that now
appears in the current gnulib is massively different AND cannot be used in any
environment
Follow-up Comment #10, bug #61226 (project make):
[comment #9 comment #9:]
> I will leave this issue open to think about how to best introduce a
backward-incompatible change that might help in this situation.
Do i understand it correctly, that as long as compatibility allows, you'd like
make to
