On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 17:35 -0600, David Hagood wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 17:02 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 15:40 -0600, david.hag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Try running the parallel version with -d (redirect the output because
> > > > it's voluminous) and see what make
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 15:43 -0800, Lawrence Ibarria wrote:
> There is a rule to make the missing .so file, or it is a byproduct of a
> different target?
Yes, there is an implicit rule on how to build any so in somedir, and an
explicit set of dependencies for all the libraries, so Make knows how t
There is a rule to make the missing .so file, or it is a byproduct of a
different target?
-- Lawrence
> -Original Message-
> From: bug-make-bounces+libarria=nvidia@gnu.org [mailto:bug-make-
> bounces+libarria=nvidia@gnu.org] On Behalf Of David Hagood
> Sent: Wednesday, Novembe
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 13:48 -0800, Lawrence Ibarria wrote:
> Does it still happen if you do a clean first?
Yes. In fact, once everything is built the first time, all is well - it
seems that Make is being silly, and if the file does not exist (but
will, as it will be made as a part of the run), then
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 17:02 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 15:40 -0600, david.hag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Try running the parallel version with -d (redirect the output because
> > > it's voluminous) and see what make says about trying to build
> > > somedir/libfoo.so: what does
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 15:40 -0600, david.hag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Try running the parallel version with -d (redirect the output because
> > it's voluminous) and see what make says about trying to build
> > somedir/libfoo.so: what does it say about the somedir/libbar.so
> > prerequisite?
> That i
Does it still happen if you do a clean first?
-- Lawrence
> -Original Message-
> From: bug-make-bounces+libarria=nvidia@gnu.org [mailto:bug-make-
> bounces+libarria=nvidia@gnu.org] On Behalf Of david.hag...@gmail.com
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 1:41 PM
> To: psm...@gnu
> Although this could be a bug, it's more likely, IMO, that your
> target/prerequisite requirements are not correctly stated.
>
> For example, it could be that you use slightly different paths so that
> make doesn't realize these two libraries are really the same thing, and
> the dependencies aren'
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 12:32 -0600, david.hag...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have a make file that includes a set of machine generated dependency
> files. Those files describe a set of shared libraries to be build, of the
> form:
>
> somedir/libfoo.so: somedir/libbar.so somedir/libbaz.so
>
> Note that "l
I have a make file that includes a set of machine generated dependency
files. Those files describe a set of shared libraries to be build, of the
form:
somedir/libfoo.so: somedir/libbar.so somedir/libbaz.so
Note that "libfoo.so" has explicitly stated it depends upon
somedir/libbar.so.
libbar.so h
Follow-up Comment #22, bug #34832 (project make):
Propagating the tls functionality to gcc-builds won't hurt, but as I already
said, please just remove it altogether if it isn't helping with anything
(which it certainly looks that way) and that will stop any future confusions.
___
Follow-up Comment #21, bug #34832 (project make):
Ozkan,
I don't understand the emotions. This is supposed to be a technical
discussion. If I said something that sounded offensive, I apologize.
More to the point: I don't know why it is there. 1996 is way before I started
to be interested in t
12 matches
Mail list logo
