* Reuben Thomas wrote on Sun, May 22, 2011 at 06:48:16PM CEST:
> Until the GNU build system
> abandons portable make (I wish it would!), we should be sticking to
> portable makefiles, which after all do have real advantages.
Even if the GNU build system aims to support portable make, that doesn't
On 22 May 2011 14:34, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> Why should this rule not be accepted by automake? Just turn off the
> warning about non-portable make constructs.
I think that would be a mistake for two reasons: first, the rule I'm
proposing is a maintainer rule, and it's better to make it avail
Hi Reuben,
* Reuben Thomas wrote on Fri, May 20, 2011 at 11:32:29PM CEST:
> I've just been playing with flymake. To make it work at all I copied
> the following rule into my src/Makefile.am from the flymake manual:
>
> check-syntax:
> gcc -o nul -S ${CHK_SOURCES}
>
> It would be nice to pu
On 20 May 2011 23:02, Eric Blake wrote:
>
> nul does not work anywhere besides Windows; elsewhere it is spelled
> /dev/null.
That's what I thought, but I couldn't find a file called "nul" created
anywhere. However, I have now found it. D'oh.
--
http://rrt.sc3d.org
On 05/20/2011 03:32 PM, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> I've just been playing with flymake. To make it work at all I copied
> the following rule into my src/Makefile.am from the flymake manual:
>
> check-syntax:
> gcc -o nul -S ${CHK_SOURCES}
>
> Secondly, the -o nul option to gcc seems to be an
>
I've just been playing with flymake. To make it work at all I copied
the following rule into my src/Makefile.am from the flymake manual:
check-syntax:
gcc -o nul -S ${CHK_SOURCES}
It would be nice to put this in maint.mk, but then it wouldn't be
picked up by make in src/, only at the top-
