Hello Paul
Could the following change be added please.
Rationale, on Windows makefiles often have this name for other "make"
programs. In addition it is easier to associate with an editor because
it has an extension.
I am not a member of this list, so could I ask to keep my email
address include
:12:32 +0100
>> From: Jonny Grant
>>
>> Rationale, on Windows makefiles often have this name for other "make"
>> programs. In addition it is easier to associate with an editor because
>> it has an extension.
>
> FWIW, I have only one makefile.mak on my
On 7 July 2014 07:06, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 21:28 +0100, Jonny Grant wrote:
>> I have a few, but triggered by make -f makefile.mak. So it would be
>> quite useful GNU Make could pick up the Windows makefile extension
>> .MAK
>
> If Eli feels
On 8 July 2014 03:38, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Paul Smith
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , bug-make@gnu.org
>> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 17:00:03 -0400
>>
>> I do wonder, though, why we have both "makefile" and "Makefile" above.
>> Does that actually ever do anything on Windows, other than waste a bit
>>
Hello
Is this a bug? line numbers are output as (2), but actually they are
different. Note that also the "Hello" is output in the wrong order.. I
presume this may be the OS rather than GNU Make.
Please keep my email address in replies as I am not a member of this list.
Regards, Jonny
$ make -f m
On 12/11/15 13:56, th...@vmware.com wrote:
Jonny Grant writes:
> Hello
> Is this a bug? line numbers are output as (2), but actually they are
> different. Note that also the "Hello" is output in the wrong order.. I
> presume this may be the OS rather than GNU Mak
On 13/11/15 13:11, Paul Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2015-11-12 at 12:12 +, Jonny Grant wrote:
Is this a bug? line numbers are output as (2), but actually they are
different. Note that also the "Hello" is output in the wrong order.. I
presume this may be the OS rather than GNU Make.
Hello
Could line numbers be added to output for the case where it says "No
rule to make target" please?
Example below. GNU Make 4.1
I'm not on this list, so please include my email address is any replies
Regards, Jonny
makefile.mak
%.o : %.d
all: test.o
echo processing
^Sorry TAB has b
On 25/11/15 13:59, th...@vmware.com wrote:
Jonny Grant writes:
> Hello
>
> Could line numbers be added to output for the case where it says "No
> rule to make target" please?
>
> Example below. GNU Make 4.1
>
> I'm not on this list, so
On 26/11/15 00:04, th...@vmware.com wrote:
Jonny Grant writes:
>
>
> On 25/11/15 13:59, th...@vmware.com wrote:
> > Jonny Grant writes:
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > Could line numbers be added to output for the case where it says
On 27/11/15 17:58, th...@vmware.com wrote:
Jonny Grant writes:
> > If you do it that way, now you've got two different formats for the
> > same message. This can be confusing to users, and certainly
> > complicates factors if there is software sit
Hello Paul
Quick question:
$ make -f missingfile.mak
make: missingfile.mak: No such file or directory
make: *** No rule to make target 'missingfile.mak'. Stop.
Shouldn't Make exit after the missing file?
Make appears to be carrying on, and then treating the makefile as a target.
Reproduced on
On 24/05/17 20:11, Edward Welbourne wrote:
Jonny Grant (24 May 2017 09:40)
$ make -f missingfile.mak
make: missingfile.mak: No such file or directory
make: *** No rule to make target 'missingfile.mak'. Stop.
Shouldn't Make exit after the missing file?
Make appears to be c
On 24/05/17 21:25, Edward Welbourne wrote:
Jonny Grant (24 May 2017 10:15)
So if missingfile.mak was generated? Would make then read it in and
process it?
Yes, it would - if it can find a rule that lets it make the file it was
told to use, it'll exercise that rule and then restart i
Hi Paul
Long time! Hope everyone is well on GNU Make team
Just noticed this typo, could it be changed to BATCH_MODE_ONLY_SHELL please
2003-11-22 Paul D. Smith
* README.W32.template (Outputs): Clarification on -j with
BATCH_MODE_ONLY_SEHLL suggested by Jonathan R. Grant
15 matches
Mail list logo
