On Sun, 2017-06-18 at 22:55 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > It seems then that the original make scripts could treat more
> > > interface descriptions as optional somehow.
> >
> > Without know what your original makefiles said I can't comment on that.
>
> Does such a feedback indicate that
>> It seems then that the original make scripts could treat more
>> interface descriptions as optional somehow.
>
> Without know what your original makefiles said I can't comment on that.
Does such a feedback indicate that would like to look also into the
corresponding development repository?
Ex
On Sun, 2017-06-18 at 21:10 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > make will see if it can be created by using your first pattern rule;
> > that means it needs a file ast_c.mli.
>
> This could be appropriate eventually.
>
> I adjusted some make scripts in this software area because of special
> impl
>>> LANG=C make --no-builtin-rules -f parsing-rule-check1.make
>> make: *** No rule to make target 'ast_c.cmo', needed by 'parsing_c.cma'.
>> Stop.
>
> I feel like this is the same question you've already asked,
> and Philip already answered, before.
An other area was eventually easier to expla
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 19:45:34 +0200
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> A rough approximation for further discussion:
>
> i_compilation?=echo
> o_compilation?=echo
> a_generation?=$(o_compilation) 'Checked modules: '
>
> parsing_c.cma: ast_c.cmo token_annot.cmo
> $(a_generation) '$<' > $@
>
> %.cmi
On Sun, 2017-06-18 at 19:45 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> i_compilation?=echo
> o_compilation?=echo
> a_generation?=$(o_compilation) 'Checked modules: '
>
> parsing_c.cma: ast_c.cmo token_annot.cmo
> $(a_generation) '$<' > $@
>
> %.cmi: %.mli
> $(i_compilation) '$<' > $@
>
>
> Could you provide examples of the Makefiles rules you tried?
A rough approximation for further discussion:
i_compilation?=echo
o_compilation?=echo
a_generation?=$(o_compilation) 'Checked modules: '
parsing_c.cma: ast_c.cmo token_annot.cmo
$(a_generation) '$<' > $@
%.cmi: %.mli
On Sun, 2017-06-18 at 17:14 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > It would have been generated if you would have called make with a
> > command like:
> > LANG=C make --no-builtin-rules -f ../rule-check2.make MOTD.log
>
> I hoped that I do not need to specify another file name for such command
> var
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Orgad Shaneh
> > Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:50:56 +0300
> > Cc: bug-make@gnu.org, Alexey Pavlov
> >
> > > I used Sleep(5), and had count of 2 (I had the same with Sleep(50)).
> >
> > That's strange. How many cores do you have on t
> It would have been generated if you would have called make with a
> command like:
> LANG=C make --no-builtin-rules -f ../rule-check2.make MOTD.log
I hoped that I do not need to specify another file name for such command variant
just to test a special default setting.
> and if you had a rule to
> From: Orgad Shaneh
> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:50:56 +0300
> Cc: bug-make@gnu.org, Alexey Pavlov
>
> > I used Sleep(5), and had count of 2 (I had the same with Sleep(50)).
>
> That's strange. How many cores do you have on that system?
>
> 4
So that would mean no matter how long you wait,
> From: David Boyce
> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 04:42:43 -0700
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Alexey Pavlov , bug-make
>
>
> In the event this patch is used: I think the interleaved-ifdef style is hard
> to read and best avoided. How about
> either separating the Windows and "other" clauses at the top lev
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 2:42 PM, David Boyce
wrote:
> In the event this patch is used: I think the interleaved-ifdef style is
> hard to read and best avoided. How about either separating the Windows and
> "other" clauses at the top level or something like this (with suitable
> comment):
>
> +
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Orgad Shaneh
> > Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:02:21 +0300
> > Cc: bug-make@gnu.org, Alexey Pavlov
> >
> > Please try the same, but with Sleep calls using 10 or even 5 msec (and
> > enlarging the loop count if necessary). I'd be inte
> From: Orgad Shaneh
> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:02:21 +0300
> Cc: bug-make@gnu.org, Alexey Pavlov
>
> Please try the same, but with Sleep calls using 10 or even 5 msec (and
> enlarging the loop count if necessary). I'd be interested to see the
> statistics of the count after which the unlink
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:03:10 +0200
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> I have tried the following small script out together with the program
> âGNU Make 4.2.1-1.7â on my openSUSE Tumbleweed system.
That "script" seems like a makefile to me.
> my_compilation?=echo
> my_preparation?=cat
> footer?=MOT
In the event this patch is used: I think the interleaved-ifdef style is
hard to read and best avoided. How about either separating the Windows and
"other" clauses at the top level or something like this (with suitable
comment):
+ for (e = 0; e < 10; ++e)
+{
+ status = unlink
Hello,
I have tried the following small script out together with the program
“GNU Make 4.2.1-1.7” on my openSUSE Tumbleweed system.
my_compilation?=echo
my_preparation?=cat
footer?=MOTD.txt
prepared_file?=MOTD.in
MOTD%.log: MOTD%.txt MOTD%.in
${my_compilation} "$<: $$(cat ${prepared_fil
18 matches
Mail list logo
