> This example is certainly simple, thanks.
>
> The Makefile isn't telling make that the rule for making c from d will
> also update b. Make caches modification times and doesn't know to
> invalidate its cache of b's time.
Thank you for the information. So I think it is Makefile.in from GNU
Au
PS> what does this information do for you?
I don't know, all I am thinking is hooks (i.e., differing error
messages that can be post processed by:) for a future hand holding
system so one can "ask what went wrong?" And have super basic tutorial
information given... (target implementation date 2050
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;
This example is certainly simple, thanks.
The Makefile isn't telling make that the rule for making c from d will
also update b. Make caches modification times and doesn't know to
invalidate its cache of b's time.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Beh
Do differentiate error messages from different triggers, all in
preparation for a perl-like
See perldiag for explanations of all Perl's diagnostics. The "use
diagnostics" pragma automatically turns Perl's normally terse warnings
and errors into these longer forms.
hand holding facility for
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
Hi,
Perhaps due to my long and annoying description, one has difficulty in
understanding what the problem I encountered was. Here I would
provide a much shorter description.
GNU Automake generates dependency tree like this in Makefile.in:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp/k$ cat Makefile
a: b
