Follow-up Comment #4, bug #65600 (group make):
Hi Gökçe,
[comment #3 comment #3:]
>
> [comment #2 comment #2:]
> > No. --silent (and .SILENT) don't silence the output of any command.
Where did you get that from?
> > No. `@` is to not print the command before executing it. For silencing
the command, you'd need to >/dev/null
>
> I made a mistake in my wording — I apologize. What I meant was *the
command before executing*.
Ahh, okay, that makes sense.
> > Use `echo ... >/dev/null`, although I don't know why you'd want to silence
echo(1). If you don't want echo(1), just remove it.
>
> You are right, in the end make should not have any effect on the output of
the executed commands.
>
> > If you want to silence make(1), you can `make >/dev/null`.
>
> In my case I only have access to `--silent` but cannot redirect the output
of `make`. Just one case does not justify my proposal — however the concept
of *silencing* is about *severity* of messages and I like that `--silent` can
suppress the commands being executed. I just propose that `$(info)` could be
included too, because `$(info)` is part of make and not a executed command.
Hmmm, I still disagree, because $(info) is a replacement for echo(1). In
fact, I use .SILENCE to not show any commands, and then $(info) shows pretty
versions of them (e.g., CC file.o, instead of cc -Wall -Wextra ... -c -o
file.o file.c).
I could change those to use @echo, but the performance would significantly
degrade.
Let me ask you why you can't redirect make(1)'s output?
Have a lovely day!
Alex
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?65600>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
