Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
>
That would be fine, if that even worked, that would probalby solve about
90% of the problems just by cleverly odering the includes... but, as I
started, the first attached makefile fails, and it includes 'ticks'
which if Makefile or one of the other touchable thing
%% Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
j> That would be fine, if that even worked, that would probalby solve
j> about 90% of the problems just by cleverly odering the
j> includes... but, as I started, the first attached makefile fails,
j> and it includes 'ticks' which if Makefile or one of the
Noel Yap wrote:
>
I think this only happens at the time the makefile is included. It's
infeasible to have make check whether all makefiles that it had
included, has been touched by something.
That would be fine, if that even worked, that would probalby solve about
90% of the problems just b
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
The amount of hairy code in a system stays constant :-) Although the
definition may be ugly, it's usage is pretty simple:
$(call include-makefile,my-makefile)
well yeah - but include-makefile supplies ,-include,$(m), for the $(1)
and $(2) in _include-makefile...
#
Noel Yap wrote:
Jim wrote:
Well that's an ugly thing :)
The amount of hairy code in a system stays constant :-) Although the
definition may be ugly, it's usage is pretty simple:
$(call include-makefile,my-makefile)
well yeah - but include-makefile supplies ,-include,$(m), for the $(1)
and
Noel Yap wrote:
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
okay so I extended it some... and this fails.
.PHONY:all
all: junk;
@echo $(TICKS)
include ticks2
ticks2:
@echo TICKS=a number >> ticks2
include make2
make2:
@echo junk: >>make2
@echo echo $(TICKS) >>make2
if ticks2 were really reload
Jim wrote:
Well that's an ugly thing :)
The amount of hairy code in a system stays constant :-) Although the definition may be ugly, it's usage is pretty simple:
$(call include-makefile,my-makefile)
> $(1) $(2)
within the macro will include a makefile on the fly eh? but sometime
after a
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
okay so I extended it some... and this fails.
.PHONY:all
all: junk;
@echo $(TICKS)
include ticks2
ticks2:
@echo TICKS=a number >> ticks2
include make2
make2:
@echo junk: >>make2
@echo echo $(TICKS) >>make2
if ticks2 were really reloaded then make2 wou
Noel Yap wrote:
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
This makefile works:
.PHONY: all
all: ;
include ticks
ticks:
@touch $(@)
How do you know? Sure the rule is done, it doesn't mean that ticks is
reloaded
Since we have this sort of thing in our makefiles, I'm pretty sure it
gets reloaded
Noel Yap wrote:
Jim wrote:
Hmm not sure how eval equates to include...
Since the actual end in mind is a Makefile.cache, which is the literal
expanded targets, rules nessecary to genearte the product defined by
the makefile... This must be dependant on all makefiles which may
have changed...
Jim wrote:
Hmm not sure how eval equates to include...
Since the actual end in mind is a Makefile.cache, which is the literal
expanded targets, rules nessecary to genearte the product defined by the
makefile... This must be dependant on all makefiles which may have
changed... the final result
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
This makefile works:
.PHONY: all
all: ;
include ticks
ticks:
@touch $(@)
How do you know? Sure the rule is done, it doesn't mean that ticks is
reloaded
Since we have this sort of thing in our makefiles, I'm pretty sure it gets reloaded. The above can eas
Paul D. Smith wrote:
I think Jim's example could be _MUCH_ clearer (what's with all that
TICKS and patsubst, etc.? That hardly seems necessary to show the
issue).
well yeah - I started off just with echo TICKS=$(TICKS)I > ticks
which just kept adding an I - so I got bored and made it roman numer
Noel Yap wrote:
This makefile works:
.PHONY: all
all: ;
include ticks
ticks:
@touch $(@)
How do you know? Sure the rule is done, it doesn't mean that ticks is
reloaded
Try adding to it little by little until it stops working.
Noel
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
It would help if yo
I think Jim's example could be _MUCH_ clearer (what's with all that
TICKS and patsubst, etc.? That hardly seems necessary to show the
issue).
But, if I understand correctly, what Jim wants is for make to re-invoke
itself after each makefile that it rebuilds, so that subsequent rebuilds
can take a
This makefile works:
.PHONY: all
all: ;
include ticks
ticks:
@touch $(@)
Try adding to it little by little until it stops working.
Noel
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
It would help if you can post a /minimal/ makefile that demonstrates
the problem.
right here - there is no fewer statem
Noel Yap wrote:
It would help if you can post a /minimal/ makefile that demonstrates the
problem.
right here - there is no fewer statements that can be done to make a
makefile which creates a makefile which creates a makefile (and no
that's not redunant). It was a attached - here it is done ver
It would help if you can post a /minimal/ makefile that demonstrates the problem.
Noel
Jim wrote:
Noel Yap wrote:
I've done what the documentation describes many, many times. It's
always worked for me.
Which make are you using? Are you sure it's GNU make?
3.80 positive it is gnu make.
htt
Paul D. Smith wrote:
%% "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The problem is that in many makefiles you tend to get a lot of "false
positives".
For example, many makefiles leave certain variables to be set by the
user, like CPPFLAGS or CFLAGS. If you do that in your makefiles, and
the user has
Noel Yap wrote:
I've done what the documentation describes many, many times. It's
always worked for me.
Which make are you using? Are you sure it's GNU make?
3.80 positive it is gnu make.
http://make.paulandlesley.org/autodep.html provides more examples on how
to rebuild included makefiles.
I've done what the documentation describes many, many times. It's always worked for me.
Which make are you using? Are you sure it's GNU make?
http://make.paulandlesley.org/autodep.html provides more examples on how to rebuild included makefiles.
HTH,
Noel
Jim wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/softwar
%% "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
dk> [ This is getting off topic for the cygwin list, and unless I've
dk> managed to spot any *real* bugs yet, it's not very OT for the
dk> bug-make list either; if we want to carry on further we should
dk> perhaps take it to private mail or to the
http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_mono/make.html#SEC20
"After all makefiles have been checked, if any have actually been
changed, make starts with a clean slate and reads all the makefiles over
again. (It will also attempt to update each of them over again, but
normally this will not
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Smith On Behalf Of Paul D. Smith
> Sent: 20 April 2004 16:44
[ This is getting off topic for the cygwin list, and unless I've managed to
spot any *real* bugs yet, it's not very OT for the bug-make list either; if
we want to carry on further we should perh
%% "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I would've expected it to complain about a bad substition reference,
>> ie. it's missing an "=".
dk> Or at least do anything, rather than nothing!
If you enable --warn-undefined-variables then you'll get a warning.
dk> Great. So for the b
> -Original Message-
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Ross Ridge
> Sent: 20 April 2004 02:41
[ Cc'd to the gmake bug reporting list; the actual bug report is at the end
of this post, and is not what the topic of this thread was originally about.
]
> > Possibly a bug in make, as I'd exp
%% Peter Keitler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
pk> the following Makefile enters an endless loop on our Cygwin installation
pk> (Win2k, SP3) with GNU Make 3.80.
pk> ### begin
pk> dep : env
pk> @echo Target: dep
pk> touch dep
pk> env:
pk> @echo Target: environment
pk> incl
Hi *,
the following Makefile enters an endless loop on our Cygwin installation
(Win2k, SP3) with GNU Make 3.80.
### begin
dep : env
@echo Target: dep
touch dep
env:
@echo Target: environment
include dep
### end
I call it with the 'make' command only, without any parameter
As requested by Mr. Paul Smith.
___
Bug-make mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
29 matches
Mail list logo
