I've used a simple circumvention for years.
_POUND = \#
and then use $(_POUND) in the command rules. which are interpreted by
shells after substitution.
Of course not using # in filenames helps!!
john alvord
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 19:46:22 -0500, Manoj Srivastava
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, 31 May 2001 16:19:44 -0400, Mark Frazer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ignoring the @ (command echo suppressor) during make debugging would
>be very handy.
>
>I can't find a documented option to do so.
I code all my command suppressor like this
_ECHO=@ # near begining
$(_ECHO)cmd
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 15:00:51 +0200, Neta Bar Tal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi there!
>when i use GNU make with the -j flag, all the output of the process
>(compiling in parallel) is mixed together,
>what can I do in order to avoid this situation (maybe I should flush the
>buffers in each child
I've been working to rework some makefiles to they work correctly
under parallel execution conditions.
all: a b c
a:
b:
c:
Lets say "a" is a rule which creates some directories which are used
by "b" and "c". How can I make sure that "b" and "
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 00:08:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Alvord) wrote:
>This is a gnu make 3.79.1, freshly gotten from the archives - date was
>June 2000 if I remember. I am work on upgrading from 3.75 to 3.79.1.
>There were a few small repairs needed, but it mostly looks OK.
>Thi
On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 20:29:20 -0400, "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>%% [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Alvord) writes:
>
> ja> This is a gnu make 3.79.1, freshly gotten from the archives - date was
> ja> June 2000 if I remember. I am work on upgrading from
served on 3.75.
I tried using bugs.gnu.org but couldn't get it to return anything from
the queries.
Has anyone else seen this?
john alvord
___
Bug-make mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
s during that
instance.
A second debug technique is the equivalent of a printf() in C. To each
rule in a makefile add a
$(ECHO)echo makefile_name rule_name $(var) etc >> trace.lst
Then run the makefile(s) and you can see a dynamic execution "trace".
This is brute force but very
even if I have xargs in there, the $? is still
> gonna expand and cause make or sh to crash.
> is there a specific way that i can use a combination of $? and xargs ?
>
> Thanks,
> Mohan
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "John Alvord" <[EMAIL PR
I have solved similar problems using xargs to break up the long list of
names into manageable chunks. This is on a NT system. john
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Mohan Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Paul:
> I am faced with another problem regarding the command line length. I
> have a large dependency list which
10 matches
Mail list logo
