On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:54 AM, brenorg wrote:
> Hi Norbert,
>
> You are absolutely right. There is much more redundancy than I expected. I
> joined all .d files in one single file and after running make on it and
> printing the database, it's actually 10x smaller. And I know there must be
> mor
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:25 PM, brenorg wrote:
>
> Anyway, I want to continue to use GNU Make, and not fallback to CMake/Ninja.
> After some profiling, what's killing me is parsing the "*.d" files generated
> by the compiler.
>
> The time to include all dependency files of my project in one singl
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 6:31 AM, SF Markus Elfring
wrote:
>
> Yes. - The evaluated variable should produce shell commands for recipes.
> I try to reuse it as a subfunction.
then use $(call -- or possibly $$(call, if you want to defer the call
to when the recipe get invoked)
not $(eval
>> It's j
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 20:06 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>> > So you have in your toolbox $(shell) and $(eval).
>>
>> I am not familiar enough with the second make function.
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Eval-Function.ht
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Paul Smith
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , bug-make@gnu.org
>> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 02:06:54 -0400
>>
>> On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 21:28 +0100, Jonny Grant wrote:
>> > I have a few, but triggered by make -f makefile.mak. So it would be
>> > quite
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Pavel Fedin
>> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:42:23 +0400
>>
>> Please take this patch, Cygwin team told that they would like to integrate
>> with upstream. I have already posted it some time ago but got no reply.
>> The patch significa
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
>
> In paticular, in the case of "integral", there is a second meaning of
> the word (go on, check that dictionary, in case you've forgotten your
> calculus) which creates a (completely wanton, given that there's a
> plainer term for a numb
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
>>> I think "integer" is meant instead of "integral".
'integral' is the adjective form of 'integer', so, in context, it is
correctly used.
>
>> Eg C99 uses "integral" as an adjective meaning "of integers",
C99 and Merriam Webster, Oxford,
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Zhenbo Xu wrote:
> 2. Out of bound
> file: function.c
> function: func_sort
> At line 1150: words = xmalloc (wordi * sizeof (char *));
> The value of wordi may be 1.
>
> At line 1171: if (i == wordi - 1 || strlen (words[i + 1]) != len
> words[i + 1] may cause overf
>
> I find your suggestions more elagant than the original, they seem more
> general purpose, and less "let's introduce this feature to get around
> a specific problem". Of your two suggestions, I'd favor the "withfile"
> option, it would be both more powerful, and doesn't introduce the
> problem o
sc_patches/make-3.82.lo_trace.patch?id=a4f03f17f42ded70e6a3c49cf4e9a90eaf3c12ca
In the spirit of 'pushing upstream', I submit this patch here, under
GPLv3+ terms.
Regards,
Norbert Thiebaud
Below is an example of output produced by this patch:
[...]
### call $(gb_Library_set_include)
11 matches
Mail list logo
