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
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
> 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'
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
