On 10/03/2011 08:20 PM, David Boyce wrote: > I have two reactions to the original post: > > 1. I hate colorized output in all its forms. If you want to add this > feature and can get it in that's fine with me as long as it will never > show up as a default in any native build of make.
Off-by-default works for me. > 2. I don't know if you've used Electric Make, which is a commercial > make which aims for 100% GNU make compatibility, but they've extended > their variant to allow for XML-tagged output. From this they can > generate graphs and charts and derive metrics and so on. So I think a > more general solution would be to offer XML-style output as a GNU make > option, and then it would be trivial to post-process that for > colorizing as well as a number of other useful purposes. I can think > of a small list of make output categories. Let's see: > > <recipe> command lines printed by make > <verbosity> other make output > <debug> the stuff printed with -d > <db> the stuff printed by make -p > <info> text from the $(info) function > <error>,<warning> as above > ??? > > Anything not within one of the tags would be considered regular > command output. If you were doing serial build, or parallel and had a > synchronization feature such as in > <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?33138>, then output could be nested > inside the <recipe> tag from which it derived which would be more > useful. I'm pretty sure ecmake does something like that. Anyway, I > think that would have more general utility than colorization per se. I see the versatility of that approach. I do not want to involve it with with colorization, though. Best, Sebastian _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
