On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 22:22 +0100, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > In the parallel case, make does exactly the same thing EXCEPT that
> > instead of waiting for the first command to complete it immediately
> > checks the second target and, since the first command is not done yet
> > and hasn't updated i
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 00:24 -0800, Bill Harding wrote:
> make -C Anims --no-print-directory -r -f Anims.mk all && make -C BGs
> --no-print-directory -r -f BGs.mk all
>
> However, at seemingly random intervals throughout the build process
> (usually about 4-5 times per build), I get the followin
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 13:27 -0800, Bill Harding wrote:
> In regards to Paul's earlier questions about the version and
> distribution of my make, it is a Cygwin version of make running on
> Windows XP. Specifically, if I access my make's help it says "Program
> built for i686-pc-cygwin". The versi
On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 20:15 -0800, suresh babu wrote:
> I am interested to do development required for GNU make. Can you give
> me the details what should I do?
Hi Suresh.
There are many outstanding issues but nothing jumps out at me at the
moment. I'm currently working on two things: memory u
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 19:00 +0100, Petr Machata wrote:
> There is a bug tracked in Red Hat bugzilla
> http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219409
>
> The problem is best demonstrated by this Makefile snippet:
>
> all:;@echo e\
> cho
>
> With this make invocation, it w
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 20:15 +, Mark Seaborn wrote:
> I profiled make. It's spending around 60% of the time in
> new_pattern_rule(), which does a linear search through the list of
> pattern rules to check for duplicate rules. glibc generates ~2500
> rules (in sysd-rules).
Holy moly! How in
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 12:21 -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > the old rule has 1 target (or multiple identical targets)
> > and
> > there exists a target in the new rule the same as the old rule's target
> >
> > See attached makefile which demonstrates this. Is that the correct
> > behaviour
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 10:40 +0100, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
> German translation of make inconsistently translates "Entering
> directory". Sometimes the correct wording "Betrete Verzeichnis",
> sometimes the very strange wording "Gehe in Verzeichnis" which sounds
> like translated by some machine
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 07:36 +, Guyeng Gankhuyag wrote:
> the build breaks whenever I include the ext2_fs.h header into C file
> as simple as following:
This mailing list is for bugs in the GNU make program. Your problem has
nothing to do with GNU make, so it's not appropriate for this mailing
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 12:39 +0100, Depner, Simon wrote:
> when im using this command: "make -j 7 BUILD_SPEC=PPC32gnu
> DEBUG_MODE=1 TRACE=1 clean all" the make is not linking, so diden't
> get any out-files.
Sorry, but there's not nearly enough information here to allow us to
help you.
Further,
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 18:41 +0100, Johannes Hölzl wrote:
> VPATH := ../dir/
> all: a
> .SECONDARY:
> a: b b
> @echo "compile"
> ../dir/b:
> $ mkdir ../dir
> $ touch ../dir/b
> $ make -f test.make
> make: Circular a <- b dependency dropped.
> compile
>
> Of course a depends on b, but why depe
On Sat, 2007-03-10 at 01:44 +0300, Ilya N. Golubev wrote:
> Versions: 3.79.1, 3.81.
>
> The definition of (file that is) <(make) Implicit
> Rule Search> is ambiguous. an explicit prerequisite> does not state, whether this means the
> prerequisite in rule in question or in any other rule in make
On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 20:49 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> There is a de facto standard solution to this problem, which is that a
> command line argument of the form "@file" causes arguments to be read from
> "file" (a "response file") if it exists. (If "file" doesn't exist,
> "@file" is take
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 15:36 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Now done.
Great; thanks!
--
---
Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at:
http://www.gnu.org http://make.pau
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 09:46 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A trivial Makefile (assuming sample.c exists etc):-
> sample: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Works correctly with make-3.80 (compiles and links), with make-3.81:-
> make: ** No rule to make target [EMAIL PROTECTED]', needed by
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 16:17 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Any guesses?
No guesses here. I can't think of any changes in make 3.81, offhand,
that would impact the environment used by the child process.
I think before we can debug this we need you or someone to examine the
cmake failure and try
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 15:57 +0200, Oriol Franquesa Cortés wrote:
> Makefile archive runs on version 3.80 but not in 3.1 beta4 version. I
> think that is a possible bug.
You should try the released version of GNU make 3.81. It was released
over a year ago so there is no reason to be using a beta
On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 14:49 +0100, Jon Grant wrote:
> I just ran make check and got 33 failures. I'm running make 3.81, on a
> 6 month old Ubuntu Linux install.
>
> They are all the same issue, the extra space. Not sure where the extra
> space comes from, is anyone else seeing this?
Please be sur
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 23:05 -0400, Marty Leisner wrote:
> There's a line
> SHELL="/bin/sh"
> in the makefile...
This is illegal.
Make is not the shell; it does not strip quotes like the shell does.
Quoting is not "harmless" in make. These two variables:
FOO = A
BAR = "A"
are v
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 19:26 +, Daniel Kraft wrote:
> I hope there's still some work to do here, but that should, of course,
> be surely the case.
Hi Daniel;
Definitely there are many things to be done. One complicating factor is
that GNU make was awarded a Google Summer of Code slot, so some
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 15:22 +0100, Jon Grant wrote:
> Could this message below be updated to remind that "make update" is
> needed to download the po files?
That message is generated from the standard gettext build environment,
that is provided by the gettext package. It's not part of the GNU ma
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 15:26 +0100, Jon Grant wrote:
> A wider query relating to these warnings is that since make 3.81 is
> released now, could we change make to use const's instead of #define'd
> values, and inline functions instead of #define macro expressions?
No... well, at least not inline
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 07:01 +0900, L.M. Schmitt (Dr, Dr.habil) wrote:
> This comment from make contradicts the manual p. 96.
What version of make are you running?
Note that the -B (--always-make) option was added in GNU make 3.80.
--
-
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 11:21 -0400, Noel Yap wrote:
> I'm using the following:
>
> yapn:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/proj/aoeu> make --version
> GNU Make 3.81beta4
I've seen a number of messages stating that people are using 3.81beta4;
why are people still using a beta version over a year after the final
v
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 11:17 +0530, chandan wrote:
> I am trying to build Microsoft visual c++ programs at the command line
> using GNU MAKE. The msdn library says that If you have a project that
> you build from the command line with a make file, then the Visual
> Studio development environment wil
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 10:16 +0200, Alexander Kahl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was building glibc today and make (newest cvs version) failed with
>
> make: file.c:147: enter_file: Assertion `*name != '\0'' failed.
> make: *** [all] Aborted
Interesting. Of course, the CVS versions of GNU make are not prod
Is currently unavailable due to a difference of opinion with my ISP as
to whether I've already given them their money or not :-/.
Hopefully this will be resolved shortly and the site will be back up
again.
Sorry for the inconvenience *sigh*.
--
--
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 11:19 +0800, Agent Zhang wrote:
> Or is it indeed intentional by design and the database is not supposed
> to be in strictly-valid makefile notation anyway? I'm not sure, so I
> think it may be wise to ask here first before firing off a bug report
> to Savannah.
It's certainl
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 20:50 +0200, Stephan Beal wrote:
> When a $(warning) or $(error) is inside a 'define', it is evaluated
> even if it is part of a comment.
Others have responded with all the info but I'm not sure everyone
understood it.
There are two factors at work here.
First, note that ma
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 17:32 +0200, Erwin Waterlander wrote:
> I compiled bash 3.2 locally. When I set
> SHELL=/home/waterlan/src/bash-3.2/bash -e -o pipefail everything
> works as expected. So the problem must be in the AT&T sh.
As far as I know, ksh doesn't support pipefail. If so, it's not a
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 12:47 +0200, Dirk Emmermacher wrote:
> Is there a make-3.81 file that works with the old HP-UX 10.20?
The GNU project doesn't make binary versions of software available for
download. We provide the source and you build your own binary. You can
obtain the source here:
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 14:28 +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> CVS make currently fails to build because make update fails to fetch
> the translation files.
Thanks for this note; I had no idea that the site had moved. I'll fix
this.
--
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 11:00 +0530, Anantharamaiah Bhaskara wrote:
> make T1 clean T2
>
> I expect
> 1. pre-requisites of T1 get built and then T1 itself
> 2. pre-requisities of T1 & T2 (common to both) get removed
> 3. pre-requisites of T2 get built and then T2 it
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 14:03 +0800, suyi wrote:
> After I uncompress make.3.81.tar on IBM AIX 5.3 ,I run make then
> get the error
>
> exec(): 0509-036 Cannot load program ./make because of the following errors:
> 0509-150 Dependent module /usr/local/lib/libintl.a(libintl.so.3)
> coul
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 10:46 +0500, Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem wrote:
> i am compinling thunderbird on my windows plateform by using
> mingw. ./configure is successful but there is problem in make
> command. here is some last lines of the output. please help me to
> solve the problem and get rid of th
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 12:45 -0700, Samuel Klatchko wrote:
> The real use case is when I have a Makefile that is building both an
> shared object and an executable that uses it. I want to factor LDLIBS
> into common libraries that both use and specific libraries that are
> only for the shared objec
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 12:45 -0700, Samuel Klatchko wrote:
> Is this a bug or am I misunderstanding how target specific variables
> work.
The latter.
See the section in the GNU make manual 'Target-specific Variable Values'
and read the part starting with "There is one more special feature of
targe
On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 22:31 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How it looks on our GNUmakefile, if sources specified within the limit
> around 450, this error occurs otherwise it reports error the parameter
> or environment list are too long.
The maximum size of the environment for a new process (w
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 18:59 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> As discussed last week, and ported to CVS head from our own internal
> build over the weekend, here's a patch that implements verbatim export
> of makefile variables to subprocesses. This is particularly handy for
> anything with a dollar sign
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 15:37 +0530, Jeenu V wrote:
> Please see the attached package.
It's difficult for us to unpack and debug larger packages. It's easier
if you provide just a single makefile, and also show the command you
invoked and show the output you received (cut and paste, please)
> Prob
Please always CC the mailing list.
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 19:13 +0530, Jeenu V wrote:
>
> Your problem is here:
> DIRS = $(shell ls)
>
> Thanks for this too. Actually I tried to get the list of directories
> with this command:
>
> $(shell for i in $(ls -d */); do echo $i
"Krejsa, Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, using 'override' also seems to prevent subsequent assignments
> to the variable, done within the Makefile without 'override', from
> taking effect, as if using 'override' made the variable look as if it
> had been defined on the command line. Th
On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 11:09 +0200, Frank Schaefer wrote:
> The problem is that 'make' seems to start building a target as soon as
> the dependency has been started to be built
This is not how make works... or at least not how it should work. If
you can provide a reproducible test case, then that
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 10:26 +0200, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:
> I'm passing --enable-case-insensitive-file-system to ./configure
> because, by default, the hgfs is case insensitive.
> The following error is encountered during linking:
I think this is an instance of Bug 19656:
https://savannah.gnu.
On Fri, 2007-10-05 at 14:53 -0700, Jim Belton wrote:
> > > I've been considering making an enhancement to gmake to support
> > > bmake's '.include "file"' semantics. In bmake, when you
> > > include a .mk file, its included files are searched for in its
> > > own directory as well as in the pat
Hi all;
I'm considering switching from CVS to another form of SCM. Currently,
Savannah supports (in addition to CVS) GNU arch and GIT. If SVN were
supported I'd probably go for that, because (a) it has great support for
alternative OSs like Windows, etc.; and (b) GNU make development is
currentl
On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 20:40 +0800, Zhongxing Xu wrote:
> In function library_search(),
> libpatterns and buf is malloced memory in line 1486 and 1553
> respectively.
> They are not freed.
> Is this true?
Correct, they are not freed--but no, this is not a memory leak. These
variables are declare
On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 21:10 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Can you tell why?
The main reasons are lack of functionality in CVS re renaming, removing,
and reorganizing files. However, it's not a critical issue; I've lived
with it for this long. The other problems CVS has (poor branch/merge,
no ato
On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 18:33 +0100, Jon Grant wrote:
> Do they get free'd up when make exits?
No. It's quite difficult to do this since the variables are static and
so are only visible within that function. In order to free them we'd
have to add them to some kind of global free list that could be
On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 20:12 +0100, Jon Grant wrote:
> the OS should cover that, but in some case I wonder if there may be a
> leak left. Would the DOS version for instance result in lost memory the
> OS cannot reallocate? (I'm not a DOS expert to answer that)
I would be surprised, since DOS is so
It looks like this discussion may have been premature, perhaps by as
little as a few weeks or so, based on the fact that Savannah has
Subversion support in beta right now and that there seems to be a lot of
action around GIT support on Windows that is being published either now
or very shortly.
So
On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 13:36 -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> IMO the objections to requiring MSYS/Cygwin on Windows made no sense
> in this discussion. "Make" is inherently a POSIX command line tool.
> Anybody using it on Windows needs a POSIX environment already anyway.
That is definitely not true. T
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 23:20 +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> I'm not asking for conversion of the duration to days, hours, minutes, and
> seconds. Just using fixed-point notation instead of exponential notation
> is enough: "480 s" is understandable.
Thanks Bruno; this seems like a good thing. I'll a
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 23:20 +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> I'm not asking for conversion of the duration to days, hours, minutes,
> and seconds. Just using fixed-point notation instead of exponential
> notation is enough: "480 s" is understandable. Here's a patch to
> achieve this
Thanks Bruno; appl
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 12:17 +0530, Nisha G wrote:
> When compiling with make I'm getting an error as below.
This is a bug in your code, not a bug in GNU make. We can't help you
solve bugs in your code: this mailing list is for bugs in the GNU make
program itself.
Good luck!
--
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 17:07 -0800, Anand, CJ wrote:
> make OS=nto CPULIST=x86 -B install LDFLAGS=-M
You have to quote the argument so make treats the entire CPULIST as one
argument:
make OS=nto CPULIST='x86 -B install' LDFLAGS=-M
This is really more of a shell syntax question than a make
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 17:19 -0900, Britton Kerin wrote:
> I would like to be able to tell make to automatically prefix all rules
> and variables that come from an include'ed makefile with a namespace
> prefix. So maybe this syntax:
>
> namespace foo_ include module_foo/Makefile
>
> The Makefile
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 01:32 +0100, Juan Manuel Guerrero wrote:
> /* Handle other OSs. */
> #ifndef PATH_SEPARATOR_CHAR
> # if defined(HAVE_DOS_PATHS)
> # define PATH_SEPARATOR_CHAR ';'
> # define IS_PATHSEP(c) ((c) == '/' || (c) == '\\')
> # define HAVE_DRIVE(n) ((n)[0] && (n)[1] ==
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 15:34 +0100, francois wrote:
> There is various minor problems in french translations of the make UI
> (v3.81). I join a patch correcting some obvious errors but I think
> there are errors left.
Hi François;
Translations for all GNU software are handled through the GNU
Tran
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 11:37 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> Translations for all GNU software are handled through the GNU
> Translation Project.
Sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention; I didn't realize you already
CC'd the French translation team ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Feel free
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 09:24 -0700, Gert Jan van Loo wrote:
> I assume this 'feature' will not be removed as it will break the
> makefile of all simple souls who are not competent enough to add a
> space in the right place.
Actually, it won't be removed because to do so would contravene the
POSIX s
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 15:17 +0530, vasanthan wrote:
> where could i found the same version of GNU make
> can any1 send me the link
Source code for GNU make can be found here:
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/make
--
-
On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 12:46 -0400, Tony Strauss wrote:
> This works very well. Now, suppose that I comment out the implicit
> rule and the order-only prerequisite (attached as example2.mk):
> #$(DERIVED_OBJ_DIR)/test.o: | $(DERIVED_OBJ_DIR)
>
> Make correctly dies with:
> gmake: *** No rule to
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 09:41 -0400, Tony Strauss wrote:
> To put it another way, imagine that order-only prerequisites were
> specified through a different syntax mechanism that did not look like
> an ordinary rule to gmake. Would this (should this) order-only
> prerequisite count as a "real rule"
On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 17:11 +0200, Arthur Carlson wrote:
> $ make SWITCH=on a
>
> makefile:10: *** missing `endif'. Stop.
This is a bug in GNU make 3.80. You should upgrade to 3.81.
I can only assume that the reason it works on one system and not the
other, is that the working version was patch
On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 01:09 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Trying to compile ltp (ltp.sf.net) with modified makefiles and
> whenever I run make as follows, it segfaults:
>
> ---
> shiina:ltp-full-20080430 gcooper$ make -Np
> Segmentation fault
Hm. I can't reproduce this; it doe
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 16:02 +, willard mapurisa wrote:
> I get the following compilation error when I try to compile a nurbs++
> package with openGL support .
Hi Willard;
This mailing list is for people having problems with the program GNU
make. Your error here is not related to make, it's r
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 13:22 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Trying out a recursive include, I seem to have run into a resource
> issue:
>
> make[2]: Entering directory `/scratch/ltp-full-20080430/tools/apicmds
> ../Makefile.inc:4: ../Makefile.inc: Too many open files
> make[2]: *** No rule to mak
On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 19:14 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> A, Sravanthi wrote on 23 May 2008 12:14:
>
> > Hi team,
> >
> > Iam trying to build my application using make on Linux server. But my
> > build doesn't stop after first error. I tried -S options but doesn't
> > seems to help.
>
> The top-l
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 19:49 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> All is well:
> $ cat Makefile
> all:z.bak
> %.bak:;
> $ make
> make: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> Until we add a %:
> $ cat Makefile
> all:z.bak
> %.bak:%;
> $ make
> make: *** No rule to make target `z.bak', neede
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 11:28 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> OK, OK, is perhaps this message,
> make: *** No rule to make target `z', needed by `a'. Stop.
> is actually triggered by several different conditions, and could
> instead be refashioned into several more exact messages, e.g.,
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 12:02 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Maybe whatever prints messages prefixed by
>make: *** No rule to make target
> is called from several different points in the code, and could give
> finer grained messages, all still on one line.
>
> Maybe there is a difference betw
On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 01:49 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Do differentiate error messages from different triggers,
I'm not sure this is fruitful, but to reiterate: there are no different
triggers. There is one procedure. It looks something like this (100%
psuedo code):
rule *r;
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 18:00 +0530, A, Sravanthi wrote:
> %.o: %.c
> #generate the *.d file with the dependency targets.
> $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -MM -MP $< > $(subst .o,.d,$@)
> $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -c $*.c
> -include a.d
-include is a make command, not a shell command, so
On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 16:00 +0530, A, Sravanthi wrote:
> 3. b.o is dependant on a.o
>
> If any changes are done to a.cc file, b.o should get rebuilt.
This is an extremely unusual situation. In what way is b.o depending on
a.cc or a.o? Generally, .o files depend on the single .c or .cc or
whate
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 17:26 +0530, A, Sravanthi wrote:
> Could you please confirm below?
Sorry, none of these questions has any relationship to GNU make; this
list is for bugs and issues in GNU make.
Please try one of the GCC mailing lists for help with GCC and porting.
Good luck!
--
-
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 19:48 +0530, A, Sravanthi wrote:
> Please advise.
Hi Sravanthi; all I can do is repeat the advice I gave you the last time
you posted a question like this to the GNU make mailing lists: this
problem is in no way related to the use of, or bugs in, GNU make, and as
such it's no
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 23:50 +0400, Ilya N. Golubev wrote:
> This may seem justified, and is at least understandable. And
> complying with all of this takes in most cases even more work than
> isolating (and even possibly fixing) the bug entirely on one's own.
> So the posting becomes pointless.
Y
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 09:06 +0200, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> I sent a message to this mailing list some months ago but I still
> didn't get an answer. Doesn't GNU Make want to consider files
> checksum in addition to mtime?
There was a Google SOC project for GNU make which added "user-definable
On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 15:39 +0200, Georg Sauthoff wrote:
> suppose that you have some include-statement in the makefile like
> this:
>
> include foo.d
>
> and make knows how to generate foo.d.
>
> Then you get a message that foo.d is missing _and_ after that make
> generates foo.d.
https://sava
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 16:39 -0600, Chang-Yeol Jung wrote:
> When running make, in the computer screen, a long list of warning
> messages are displaying. I'd like to see only the compile errors.
>
> Is there an option for this? Or, is there a way that I can see only
> the errors so that I can debug
On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 22:42 +0200, Daniela Rütting wrote:
> 1st problem: In an attempt to reduce tedious typing when defining a variable
> from the command line, I tried:
> ifeq (max,$(O))
> O = -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-unroll-loops
> endif
> ifeq (,$(O))
> O = -O
> endif
> CXXFLAGS = -W -Wa
Hi all;
While working on some changes to 2nd expansion etc. to try to reduce
total heap usage in GNU make, I've discovered that there is a bug in the
current makefile parsing. My new version doesn't have this bug (or,
more precisely, it contains the opposite bug) and I've noticed at least
two dif
On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 23:15 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> Can you give me a more precise pointer where we have this issue
> so I can get it fixed. I guess it is Makefile.build...
If you mean in the Linux kernel there are two places:
Makefile:1601: *** mixed implicit and normal rules. Sto
On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 15:32 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
> Just to be clear, the problem with mixing a pattern with a normal
> target is what happens when there's a pattern prerequisite, right? I
> mean, the example you gave at least has a sensical _possible_
> interpretation, but this:
>foo
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 11:49 -0600, Afowowe,Emmanuel O wrote:
> Have you seen errors similar to the one below during the compile of
> AFNI for Solaris 10?
>
> # make 'CC=gcc' totality
>
> gcc -c thd_loaddblk.c -I. -I/usr/dt/include -I/usr/openwin/include
> -I/usr/openwin/share/include/X11 -Inifti/
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 18:53 +, David Wuertele wrote:
> I posted this to the developer list but got no response. Looks like there's
> been no activity on that list since October. Is it dead? Anyway, here's the
> bug report:
Which list do you mean by the developer list? It's helpful if you
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 16:34 +0530, jaskirat singh wrote:
> i have been installing GNU radio on fedora. after giving
> the ./bootstrap and ./configure command in gnuradio-core,it works fine
> but as i move to make it shows the following error.
Your problem is with installing GNU Radio; this ma
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 13:27 -0800, willard wrote:
>
> I am new to this message board... I did not intend to yell...
> Thanks for the info... I hope the Gnu Make developers are listening to
> bug-m...@gnu.org.
> I had a quick look at the CVS tree bug tracking (on sourceforge.net), and I
> didn't s
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 05:04 -0800, Yakup Akbay wrote:
> in chapter ‘2.7 Rules for Cleaning the Directory’ in ‘GNU make’
> document.
> .PHONY : clean
> clean :
> -rm edit $(objects)
>
> The minus sign before ‘rm’ seems to be a clerical error.
Why do you say so? That's pe
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 10:24 -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
> Those are just the sort of items I would consider if this was my
> project; Paul and the other developers may have completely different
> criteria in mind, but I would be surprised if they didn't overlap
> some.
I think all of Philip's po
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 13:23 +0100, Antoine Petitet wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I sent this message to help mailing alias. I should have sent it
> maybe to this alias, eventhough, it is not obvious to me at this
> point that the issue is in GNU make.
This is not good at all. This means that somehow ma
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 09:52 +0200, bestellrep1 wrote:
> Please keep my email-address confidential, as I don't want to get spam.
Sorry, but this is a mailing list. Anyone can subscribe. Plus it's
archived in numerous places, all of which are publicly available and
searchable.
> The command (1)
>
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 23:59 -0500, Hamed Janzadeh wrote:
> Last night I found a very cruel bug in GNU make that led to a costly
> experience for me. Hence, I decided to report it and to help others
> not to repeat my experiment.
>
> In a Makefile, and in assignment operations, the space character
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 03:03 +1000, Anthony Shipman wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 11:26:14 am Philip Guenther wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Anthony Shipman wrote:
> > > I've tried the example in section 3.8 Overriding Part of Another
> > > Makefile. i.e.
> > >
> > > foo:
> > >f
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 16:07 -0400, Aleksey Yakovlev wrote:
> Please take a look at my posting #4:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.utils.bug/browse_thread/thread/e23e2352bf6f8a91?hl=en#
It would work out better to use this list. Here's the message I guess
you mean:
> It looks like the mak
On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 00:46 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> > //%: //%
> > @echo oops!
>
> When I run this with GNU make 3.80, I get this error:
>
> make: Circular /tmp/x1.mk <- /tmp/x1.mk dependency dropped.
>
> Is that what you mean by "norm
On Sat, 2009-06-06 at 04:09 -0400, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Might as well bring some glibc expert on board for this discussion.
> (Sorry, I don't have a recommendation who might that be.) They could
> put the glibc behavior into perspective, and also advise about other
> implementations of `glob'.
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 20:09 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Thanks for maintaining GNU make,
Thanks for these Ralf. I'll get them in.
___
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 22:51 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> 1) One possibility would be to drop -c and pipe the command line to sh
> on standard input. Just like parallel make, this would prevent using
> the standard input of the make process within the child command process.
>
> 2) Another possi
1 - 100 of 1523 matches
Mail list logo
