[bug #55532] Missing prerequisites are not included in $^ if .SECONDARY is present

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #55532 (project make): Maybe, is it better to check other special targets as well? '.PRECIOUS: bar' does not interfere the $^, but I see similar weirdness for '.INTERMEDIATE: bar'. ___ Reply to this item at: <

Re: Shell function and LD_LIBRARY_PATH

On 1/20/19 8:47 PM, Mohammad Akhlaghi wrote: Thank you very much for the prompt replies, they were very useful. In the end (for the time being!), I am using patchelf. I couldn't find a way to configure Bash with RPATH (I still haven't stopped searching, but I need to progress for now). I ha

Re: Shell function and LD_LIBRARY_PATH

Thank you very much for the prompt replies, they were very useful. In the end (for the time being!), I am using patchelf. I couldn't find a way to configure Bash with RPATH (I still haven't stopped searching, but I need to progress for now). It is interesting that exported variables are not s

Re: GNU Make for Java projects

Thank you for your kind response. It seems to me, and as reported by others, that what Make does and what the Java build tools do have some fundamental differences. Some that come to mind are as follows: 1. When building C programs one calls the compiler for each source file. This is impractica

Re: Why is $? affected by .SECONDARY ?

Hi Paul, On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 7:45 AM Paul Smith wrote: > > On Sun, 2019-01-13 at 11:19 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > [Test Code 2] > > -->8--- > > foo: bar FORCE > > @echo newer prerequisites are: $? > > bar: > > .PHONY: FORCE > > .SECONDARY: > > --

[bug #55533] .SECONDARY with % pattern

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #55533 (project make): The correct command of 'Result 2' is as follows: Result 2 $ rm -f a.* $ touch a.zzz $ make a.xxx cp a.zzz a.yyy cp a.yyy a.xxx rm a.yyy ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #55533] .SECONDARY with % pattern

URL: Summary: .SECONDARY with % pattern Project: make Submitted by: None Submitted on: Mon 21 Jan 2019 01:38:58 AM UTC Severity: 3 - Normal Item Group: Enhancement

[bug #55532] Missing prerequisites are not included in $^ if .SECONDARY is present

URL: Summary: Missing prerequisites are not included in $^ if .SECONDARY is present Project: make Submitted by: None Submitted on: Mon 21 Jan 2019 01:03:46 AM UTC Severity: 3 - Normal

Re: Why is $? affected by .SECONDARY ?

On Sun, 2019-01-13 at 11:19 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > [Test Code 2] > -->8--- > foo: bar FORCE > @echo newer prerequisites are: $? > bar: > .PHONY: FORCE > .SECONDARY: > -->8--- > > Result: > > $ touch foo; make > newer prereq

Re: Shell function and LD_LIBRARY_PATH

On Sun, 2019-01-20 at 21:57 +, Martin Dorey wrote: > > Why ouch? > > Because it's unpleasant and wasteful to work in an environment where > you're not trusted. Well, it might not be work-related. I can ssh into my ISP server using my local account so I can muck around and set things up, but

Re: Shell function and LD_LIBRARY_PATH

> Why ouch? Because it's unpleasant and wasteful to work in an environment where you're not trusted. ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: Shell function and LD_LIBRARY_PATH

On Sun, 2019-01-20 at 21:18 +, Martin Dorey wrote: > >> on a server, where I don't have root access > > Ouch. Why ouch? He's installing his own bash so he can modify his own version of bash. He just can't install it as the system version or add libraries to the default runtime library searc

Re: Shell function and LD_LIBRARY_PATH

>> on a server, where I don't have root access Ouch. > using RPATH at link time Debian has a package called chrpath, supplying an executable of the same name which lets you change the RPATH later. That might be easier than doing battle with the underlying bash package's build rules. The man

Re: Shell function and LD_LIBRARY_PATH

On Sun, 2019-01-20 at 19:32 +, Mohammad Akhlaghi wrote: > Since I couldn't find any mention of this in in the manual, I wanted to > see if this removal of LD_LIBRARY_PATH from the $(shell) function is > intentional or if its a bug? It is not the case that LD_LIBRARY_PATH is removed by the $(

Shell function and LD_LIBRARY_PATH

Dear GNU Make developers, I recently installed the newly released Bash 5.0 (accompanied by a new libreadline library) in a user-specific directory. The host operating system (on a server, where I don't have root access) uses an older version of Bash. Through Make's `SHELL' variable, I have a