There is a rule to make the missing .so file, or it is a byproduct of a different target?
-- Lawrence > -----Original Message----- > From: bug-make-bounces+libarria=nvidia....@gnu.org [mailto:bug-make- > bounces+libarria=nvidia....@gnu.org] On Behalf Of David Hagood > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 3:36 PM > To: psm...@gnu.org > Cc: bug-make@gnu.org > Subject: Re: Make 3.81 and 3.82 break on parallel build > > On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 17:02 -0500, Paul Smith wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 15:40 -0600, david.hag...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Try running the parallel version with -d (redirect the output because > > > > it's voluminous) and see what make says about trying to build > > > > somedir/libfoo.so: what does it say about the somedir/libbar.so > > > > prerequisite? > > > That it does not exist, so it fails. But if run not-parallel, it > > > correctly identifies it must be built first. > > > > ?? You mean _make_ says the file doesn't exist and so make fails? Or > > the linker says it doesn't exist and the linker fails? > The linker is run, and fails. However, the -d -p output says that Make > is fully aware the prereq does not exist, but for some reason decides > that doesn't matter. The output ALSO clearly shows that make knows the > prereq must BE made. It's like the scheduling of what rules to run next > gets out sync. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-make mailing list > Bug-make@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
