All,
I am a compiler expert, busy doing compiler optimization
invention, design, and implementation, and perhaps someday some of
the fruits of my inventions can, with my employer's permission, be
folded into gcc. in that light, it would be far better to the
community overall if I ca
ts, I have never
looked into the sources of make itself.
-Peter Lawrence.
On Aug 2, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
the output I see from make is after all macro substitutions have been
made, which can make it virtually impossible
to recognize as far as where it came from in th
g to use
it on the really big and messy makefiles we're
seeing these days ?
-Peter Lawrence.
plus
On Jul 31, 2010, at 8:15 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Peter Lawrence
wrote:
On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
one t
On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
From: Peter Lawrence
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 07:41:49 -0700
Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
one thing I remember in detail about Sun's make, is that
instead of writing a level number
make[3]: ...
make[2]: ...
make[1]: ...
it wrote ou
make[foo/bar]: ...
make[foo]: ...
make[.]: ...
even that simple tidbit of information is really useful.!!.
-Peter Lawrence.
On Jul 29, 2010, at 9:54 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 21:09 -0700, Peter Lawrence wrote:
make[3]: *** No rule to make target `real-install-header
should be doing the same
with gnu's make.
-Peter Lawrence.
___
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
