Re: patsubst: Whitespaces are not replaced by spaces | Possible issue in make or the documentation

in > `make`. The documentation [1] says > > Whitespace between words is folded into single space characters; > > leading and trailing whitespace is discarded. I believe that was trying to discuss whitespace etc. within the pattern words, not within the to-be-substituted text. But, it

patsubst: Whitespaces are not replaced by spaces | Possible issue in make or the documentation

Hello, I am currently taking a closer look at the `patsubst` function in `make`. The documentation [1] says > Whitespace between words is folded into single space characters; leading and > trailing whitespace is discarded. I have now created a example file (see attachment): ``

Re: .NOTPARALLEL doesn't seem to work as shown in the documentation

On Thu, 2025-04-24 at 11:45 +0200, Gabriele Santandrea wrote: > Greetings, > I am trying to learn make, going through the documentation and even > writing a repository containing examples copied, extrapolated or > commented from the GNU make docs. > > In Section 5.4.

.NOTPARALLEL doesn't seem to work as shown in the documentation

Greetings, I am trying to learn make, going through the documentation and even writing a repository containing examples copied, extrapolated or commented from the GNU make docs <https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html>. In Section 5.4.1 <https://www.gnu.org/software/ma

[bug #66324] Typo in documentation?

Update of bug #66324 (group make): Status:None => Fixed Assigned to:None => psmith Open/Closed:Open => Closed Operating System:None => Any Fixed Release:

[bug #66490] Documentation of patsubst function could be more clear

Update of bug #66490 (group make): Item Group: Bug => Documentation Status: Not A Bug => None Open/Closed: Closed => Open Summary: pattern substitution with % does not match

[bug #66324] Typo in documentation?

URL: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66324> Summary: Typo in documentation? Group: make Submitter: None Submitted: Fri 11 Oct 2024 04:05:25 PM UTC Severity: 3 - Normal Item Group: Documen

[bug #64818] patsubst shorthand documentation bug?

Update of bug #64818 (project make): Item Group: Bug => Documentation Status:None => Fixed Assigned to:None => psmith Op

[bug #64818] patsubst shorthand documentation bug?

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #64818 (project make): Andreas also missed a % :) $(patsubst %World,%Earth,$(STR)) ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message s

[bug #64818] patsubst shorthand documentation bug?

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #64818 (project make): You are missing the %. $(patsubst %World,Earth,$(STR)) ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message sent via

[bug #64818] patsubst shorthand documentation bug?

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #64818 (project make): I rephrase my doubt, according to what the documentation says, if I run the following code with the 'make test' command the variables 'FOO' and 'FOO2' should have the same value STR = HelloWorld FOO = $(STR:World=

[bug #64818] patsubst shorthand documentation bug?

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #64818 (project make): The difference is that pattern contains a % bug suffix does not. This is explained in #Substitution-Refs. ___ Reply to this item at: _

[bug #64818] patsubst shorthand documentation bug?

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #64818 (project make): I think the different is that in the case of suffix, you can simply omit '%' . That is instead of $(objects:%.c=%.o) you can conveniently write $(objects:.c=.o). ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #64818] patsubst shorthand documentation bug?

URL: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64818> Summary: patsubst shorthand documentation bug? Group: make Submitter: parmi93 Submitted: Thu 26 Oct 2023 01:52:37 PM UTC Severity: 3 - Normal Item

[bug #17881] Better documentation of make rules

arifying the introductory documentation here so I'll close this one. ___ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?17881> ___ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/

Re: Documentation Typo

On Sun, 2023-01-01 at 18:39 -0800, Vafilor wrote: > so just changing the second `of` to be `if`.  I made this fix, thanks for reporting!

Documentation Typo

Hi there, I think there is a tiny typo in the documentation at https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Special-Targets.html#Special-Targets under the *.secondary* name it says: Of course, of one of the source files *were* updated... I believe it should be Of course, *if* one of the

Re: shell assignment operator documentation missing 'not'

mple variable. If it were a simple variable then the two assignments ":=" and "!=" would be identical in behavior. Thanks for pointing out this error in the documentation!

shell assignment operator documentation missing 'not'

In the info file documenting the shell assignment operator in section 3.7 "reading makefiles", there is the phrase: "...that variable becomes a simple variable (and will thus be re-evaluated on each reference)." A simple variable is NOT re-evaluated on each reference, so the word "not" is missi

jobserver: the documentation says it is blocking, but it is not in practice

Dear GNU Make developers, Could you clarify whether the read side of the jobserver pipe is meant to be in blocking or non-blocking mode? According to the documentation [1], the read side is meant to be blocking. However, the implementation of make sets the read side to non-blocking [2] when

Re: GNU Make documentation example error

ugh I remembered it, though I failed to find a robots.txt preventing it from indexing the mailing list archive.) From: Bug-make on behalf of Niko's ProtonMail Account Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 04:34 To: bug-make@gnu.org Subject: GNU Make documentati

Re: GNU Make documentation example error

example where the equals > sign is used (at the bottom of the section) and it likewise only > works once I remove the equals sign. That's not an error. It just means that you're using an old version of GNU make, that doesn't support this syntax. The online documentation do

GNU Make documentation example error

Dear GNU maintainers, I think there may be a mistake in the section “5.8 Defining Canned Recipes” of the GNU Make manual: https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Canned-Recipes. The examples show the “define” directive followed by an equals sign (“=“), however for me it only works on

Re: bug in documentation - eval function

On Wed, 2021-01-13 at 09:18 +0100, Piotr Jankowski wrote: > At least on GNU Make 3.81 the one with the equal sign does not work. > It does not cause a visible error but does not work. It works fine for all versions of GNU make 3.82 and above; 3.82 was released in July 2010. The online manual docu

bug in documentation - eval function

Hi, I possibly discovered a bug in the documentation on the manual page hosted at: https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Eval-Function.html In the example makefile: define PROGRAM_template = $(1): $$($(1)_OBJS) $$($(1)_LIBS:%=-l%) ALL_OBJS += $$($(1)_OBJS) endef Should

make -s -n documentation

(info "(make) Echoing") perhaps should mention what happens when -s and -n are combined.

Minor Documentation Incompleteness

Just wanted to drop you all a note and say that I was reading the GNU Make manual online recently, and in the section describing the $(wildcard pattern) function the significance of asterisks was explained, but not the significance of other shell-style filename expansion notations, such as [], whic

Re: Building Documentation

On Sun, 2020-05-24 at 21:10 -0500, Pete Dietl wrote: > Does anyone have advice on how to build the web documentation? > I tried running `make gendocs` but I get errors like: > > cvs -d :pserver:anonym...@cvs.sv.gnu.org:/web/www co 'www/server/standards' > > cvs [c

Building Documentation

Does anyone have advice on how to build the web documentation? I tried running `make gendocs` but I get errors like: cvs -d :pserver:anonym...@cvs.sv.gnu.org:/web/www co 'www/server/standards' cvs [checkout aborted]: connect to cvs.sv.gnu.org(209.51.188.81):2401 failed: Connection refused

Some suggestion to improve documentation for GNU Make

Hi, I would like to make some notices about documentation for GNU Make utility in its part which concerns automatic generation dependency files for C/C++ sources. This is paragraph *"4.13 Generating Prerequisites Automatically"*. According to documentation dependency rul

Re: Documentation - reference not defined query

On Mon, 2020-01-20 at 16:32 -0500, Paul Smith wrote: > > ...$ make Makefile I also wanted to say, this is wrong as written here... you don't want to give Makefile as a target to be built. You should just run "make" with no arguments. Make will read a file named "Makefile" by default. Only if yo

Re: Documentation - reference not defined query

Please always CC the mailing list instead of email me directly (or just reply only to the list). That way others can help even if I'm unavailable. On Mon, 2020-01-20 at 14:44 -0500, Pete Edwards wrote: > Dear paul, Thank you > You are right, I tried to print the IDF_PATH variable contents using

Re: RCS / SCCS (was: Re: Documentation - reference not defined query)

Thank you Paul...makes sense now you point it out. Thank you Pete E On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 1:44 PM Paul Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2020-01-20 at 13:09 -0500, Pete Edwards wrote: > > The reference to RCS and SCCS file types on page > > > https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Remaking-

Re: Documentation - reference not defined query

On Mon, 2020-01-20 at 13:58 -0500, Paul Smith wrote: > > Makefile:8: /home/pete/esp/esp-idf:/home/esp/esp-idf/make/project.mk: > > No such file or directory > > This means make is trying to include the file named, literally, > /make/project.mk and that file (not surprisingly) cannot be found. S

Re: Documentation - reference not defined query

In general it's helpful if you use plain text emails, and/or format your email carefully especially with makefiles as things like indentation are crucial to see correctly. Also it's important to ask clear questions, one at a time, and give a very clear description of your environment etc. As a no

RCS / SCCS (was: Re: Documentation - reference not defined query)

On Mon, 2020-01-20 at 13:09 -0500, Pete Edwards wrote: > The reference to RCS and SCCS file types on page > https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Remaking-Makefiles.html#Remaking-Makefiles > > What is an RCS File type? Google references 3D scene data type...I don't > think that's wh

Documentation - reference not defined query

Hi, I am new to make and Makefiles and ran into a problem through eclipse, which I am researching the cause for...not getting there fast I know. Anyway, I decided to research make today and get confused with references to some things in your documentation, Soo Since I read your bug reporting page

[bug #49262] Update match-anything rule documentation

Update of bug #49262 (project make): Status:None => Fixed Assigned to:None => psmith Open/Closed:Open => Closed Fixed Release:

Re: Immediate and deferred expansion documentation rewording

> ... as a construct of at least two sections, because nam is immediately > evaluated, while the evaluation of exp is deferred. As in my original question, I agree that the documentation implies that constructs contain sections, some of which are immediately expanded, while others have a defer

Re: Immediate and deferred expansion documentation rewording

hat exp gets evaluated. exp needn't itself appear again. From: Maris Razvan Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 13:19 To: Martin Dorey Cc: bug-make@gnu.org Subject: Re: Immediate and deferred expansion documentation rewording * EXTERNAL EMAIL * Thank y

Re: Immediate and deferred expansion documentation rewording

Thank you for your answer. I have some follow-up questions. > > > I understand the following > > Apart from the word "cmake", that chimed with my understanding. > > > a completely different meaning than the one used in the previous sentences > > I think the meanings are consistent if "a section o

Re: Immediate and deferred expansion documentation rewording

ent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 09:31 To: bug-make@gnu.org Subject: Immediate and deferred expansion documentation rewording * EXTERNAL EMAIL * Hello, I was reading section 3.7 of the GNU make online manual (https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnu.org%2Fsoft

Immediate and deferred expansion documentation rewording

Hello, I was reading section 3.7 of the GNU make online manual (https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Reading-Makefiles), especially the second paragraph: "It’s important to understand this two-phase approach because it has a direct impact on how variable and function expansion happe

Re: Documentation issue

On Thu, 2019-09-05 at 16:49 -0400, Peter Marshall wrote: > 5.3 Recipe Execution > > foo : bar/lose > cd $(@D) && gobble $(@F) > ../$@ Indeed this is incorrect. I've updated the manual. Thanks for mentioning this! ___ Bug-make mailing list Bu

Documentation issue

Hello, I think I found a documentation issue in the GNU make manual. Section 5.3 of the GNU make manual *implies *that $(@D) and $(@F) expand to the prerequisite path and file respectively, but section 10.5.3 says they expand according to the filename of the target. https://www.gnu.org/software

Documentation error for makefile substitution references

On this page, the text is incorrect: Substitution references (see Substitution References) are a simpler way to get the effect

[bug #54116] Extend documentation for space-free line continuation techniques

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #54116 (project make): Thanks; I feel better using this technique knowing that it's officially supported :-) ___ Reply to this item at: ___

[bug #54116] Extend documentation for space-free line continuation techniques

=> SCM ___ Follow-up Comment #1: I added some documentation and a test to ensure it stays valid. I only documented the basic technique, not the second technique with post-processing. I'm not sure that's appropriate for the user manual. Maybe that shoul

[bug #52273] Documentation about remaking makefiles should mention MAKE_RESTARTS

Update of bug #52273 (project make): Status:None => Fixed Assigned to:None => psmith Open/Closed:Open => Closed Fixed Release:

[bug #52696] Documentation changed for "subst"

Update of bug #52696 (project make): Status:None => Fixed Assigned to:None => psmith Open/Closed:Open => Closed Fixed Release:

[bug #54116] Extend documentation for space-free line continuation techniques

URL: <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?54116> Summary: Extend documentation for space-free line continuation techniques Project: make Submitted by: drmikehenry Submitted on: Thu 14 Jun 2018 04:44:07 PM UTC Sever

Documentation buglet: $(wildcard PATTERN...)

In node Wildcard Function ("The Function `wildcard'"), wildcard can take multiple patterns: If you want to do wildcard expansion in such places, you need to use the `wildcard' function, like this: $(wildcard PATTERN...) However in node File Name Functions ("Functions for F

RE: Documentation bug: mistaken transitive verb

"Variables Simplify Makefiles" in place of "Variables Make Makefiles Simpler" too. Despite the latter being clever and euphonious, it makes me double-take, particularly in that capitalization. -Original Message- From: Bug-make On Behalf Of Garreau, Alexandre Sent

Documentation bug: mistaken transitive verb

I was reading make info documentation for the second time since a quite long time now, and I suppose my english level has improved since this time this bugged me: * Variables Simplify:: Variables make makefiles simpler. After overcoming the doubt caused by the uncommon use of a conjugated

[bug #52696] Documentation changed for "subst"

URL: <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?52696> Summary: Documentation changed for "subst" Project: make Submitted by: ola1olsson Submitted on: Tue 19 Dec 2017 07:35:57 PM UTC Severity: 3 - Normal

[bug #52273] Documentation about remaking makefiles should mention MAKE_RESTARTS

URL: <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?52273> Summary: Documentation about remaking makefiles should mention MAKE_RESTARTS Project: make Submitted by: thomastc Submitted on: Tue 24 Oct 2017 09:29:58 AM UTC Sever

[bug #49262] Update match-anything rule documentation

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #49262 (project make): I thought it might be useful to mention it in the chaining section as well as it is behavior specific to implicit rule chaining. ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #49262] Update match-anything rule documentation

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #49262 (project make): ...which is some of the text that you're patching. Sorry, should have looked at the patch first. That said, I don't thinking bringing up a particular case in match-any rule processing is helpful in that earlier page about implicit-rules; match-any

[bug #49262] Update match-anything rule documentation

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #49262 (project make): That paragraph doesn't apply to something like %.o: foo @echo $@ %: @echo $@ $ make foo.o -R $ make: *** No rule to make target 'foo.o'. Stop. ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #49262] Update match-anything rule documentation

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #49262 (project make): I think this is covered in "10.5.5 Match-Anything Pattern Rules" - If you do not mark the match-anything rule as terminal, then it is non-terminal. A non-terminal match-anything rule cannot apply to a file name that indicates a specific typ

[bug #49262] Update match-anything rule documentation

URL: <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?49262> Summary: Update match-anything rule documentation Project: make Submitted by: lukeallardyce Submitted on: Tue 04 Oct 2016 03:47:00 AM GMT Severity: 3 - Normal

[bug #35455] “EmptyRecipes” documentation update

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #35455 (project make): Thanks for that. Looking at it, I think the point is that foo: bar-stamp would leave make baffled about how it is supposed to make foo from bar-stamp; whereas foo: bar-stamp ; means that the way to do it is to do nothing (and rely on the s

[bug #35455] “EmptyRecipes” documentation update

Update of bug #35455 (project make): Status:None => Fixed Assigned to:None => psmith Open/Closed:Open => Closed Fixed Release:

Enhancement request on documentation for 'Multiple Targets in a Rule'

Hello, section 4.10 'Multiple Targets in a Rule' in make documentation states: bigoutput littleoutput : text.g generate text.g -$(subst output,,$@) > $@ is equivalent to bigoutput : text.g generate text.g -big > bigoutput littleoutput : text.g generat

Re: Documentation for eval() has a bug

Ah, nevermind, I just saw this. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13260396/gnu-make-3-81-eval-function-not-working -- David. David Hart Limnu --- https://limnu.com On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 12:21 PM, David Hart wrote: > > Hi, I've run into this problem twice (because I forgot the first time) a

Documentation for eval() has a bug

Hi, I've run into this problem twice (because I forgot the first time) and spent some time debugging my code only to find I'd followed the gnu make manual's example, which appears to have a bug in it. Or, eval() or the define directive has a bug, I'm not sure which. (Appendix A in the manual appear

Re: Documentation Bug

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Reinier Post wrote: > > > Please correct it. > > It would be better to write 'followed by' instead of '/' > to avoid this misunderstanding. > > Yes this would be better in order to avoid end user misunderstanding. Thanks, Pankaj > -- > Reinier Post >

Re: Documentation Bug

On Wed Jul 8 11:02:55 2015, engg.kaus...@gmail.com (Pankaj Kaushik) wrote: > Hi Team, > > There is documentation bug in make file pdf(see attachement) on Page no 2 > under section 2.2 at below line. > > >>We split each long line into two lines using backslash/ > >

Re: order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

since being phony makes order-only uniniteresting. -don provan dpro...@bivio.net -- View this message in context: http://gnu-make.2324884.n4.nabble.com/order-only-prerequisites-don-t-behave-as-I-d-have-expected-after-reading-the-documentation-tp3787p15681.htm

missing TARGET_ARCH in documentation for implicit rules

Hi, the documentation for implicit rules says for compiling C/C++ $(CC) $(CPPFLAGS) $(CFLAGS) -c $(CXX) $(CPPFLAGS) $(CXXFLAGS) -c but the source says default.c:479: "COMPILE.c", "$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $(TARGET_ARCH) -c", default.c:483: "COMPILE.cc",

Re: [bug #26596] MAKEFLAGS documentation tweak

On 05/23/2013 10:28 PM, Paul Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 22:09 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> On 05/22/2013 06:56 PM, Paul Smith wrote: >>> I've reworked the MFLAGS / MAKEFLAGS generation to be more regular and >>> rigorous yesterday, for 4.0, and to preserve _some_ backward-compat; I

Re: [bug #26596] MAKEFLAGS documentation tweak

On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 22:09 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 05/22/2013 06:56 PM, Paul Smith wrote: > > I've reworked the MFLAGS / MAKEFLAGS generation to be more regular and > > rigorous yesterday, for 4.0, and to preserve _some_ backward-compat; I > > had thought about this issue when I did s

Re: Documentation for the eval function

> > If your version is 3.80 or newer, please cut/paste (exactly) your > makefile so we can see it. > I took the example from the documentation: http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Eval-Function.html#Eval-Function $ make --version GNU Make 3.81 Copyright (C) 2006 F

Re: [bug #26596] MAKEFLAGS documentation tweak

On 05/22/2013 06:56 PM, Paul Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 17:42 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Hi Paul. >> >> On 05/22/2013 05:17 PM, Paul D. Smith wrote: >>> Follow-up Comment #1, bug #26596 (project make): >>> >>> Hm. I'm not sure why the immediate expansion has limited content. Is

Re: Documentation for the eval function

On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 20:13 +0200, Sascha Ziemann wrote: > Hi, > > I think the example in the documentation for the eval function is > broken. I copied the example to a file and tried it with "make clean". > The action for the clean target is "rm -f $(ALL_OBJS

Documentation for the eval function

Hi, I think the example in the documentation for the eval function is broken. I copied the example to a file and tried it with "make clean". The action for the clean target is "rm -f $(ALL_OBJS) $(PROGRAMS)". The PROGRAMS variable is set at the beginning to "server

Re: [bug #26596] MAKEFLAGS documentation tweak

On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 17:42 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Hi Paul. > > On 05/22/2013 05:17 PM, Paul D. Smith wrote: > > Follow-up Comment #1, bug #26596 (project make): > > > > Hm. I'm not sure why the immediate expansion has limited content. Is there > > any purpose to this? Wouldn't it j

Re: [bug #26596] MAKEFLAGS documentation tweak

Hi Paul. On 05/22/2013 05:17 PM, Paul D. Smith wrote: > Follow-up Comment #1, bug #26596 (project make): > > Hm. I'm not sure why the immediate expansion has limited content. Is there > any purpose to this? Wouldn't it just be better to have the immediate > expansion resolve to the entire thin

[bug #26596] MAKEFLAGS documentation tweak

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #26596 (project make): Hm. I'm not sure why the immediate expansion has limited content. Is there any purpose to this? Wouldn't it just be better to have the immediate expansion resolve to the entire thing? I'll have to look into it; maybe there's a good reason for do

Re: Example use of findstring in documentation can be problematic

r example $(findstring car,bicicle airplain > carriage) will return a non-empty value. Instead it seems that > 'filter' should be used for this kind of problem. > Should the documentation in those sections be modified to note the > problem and suggest using filter as an altern

Example use of findstring in documentation can be problematic

mpty value. Instead it seems that 'filter' should be used for this kind of problem. Should the documentation in those sections be modified to note the problem and suggest using filter as an alternative? --David -- David Sankel Sankel Software ww

[bug #37970] Misleading documentation of LDFLAGS variable

Update of bug #37970 (project make): Status:None => Fixed Assigned to:None => psmith Open/Closed:Open => Closed Operating System:

Re: [bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"

e comments > throughout it describing how this year's model is different from the > previous years?) The problem is that people find documentation elsewhere and need to be aware which version of the bike or model it applies to. You can argue the issue rightfully belongs on someone e

Re: [bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"

. I completely disagree. Length is not an issue for documentation these days; reliability is. Right now I don't know whether documentation for make I find online matches the version I'm using. > The documentation for the program on your box is on your box. WTP? It's usually easi

Re: [bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"

r this aspect alone, I'll look at it. If it's not too ugly I'll add it in. My opinion remains that the only way to be sure you're not being misled by the documentation is to use what is provided by your GNU/Linux distribution. That documentation will always be the cor

Re: [bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"

a slippery slope. > If the GNU website were to require you to select the version of make > you wanted to see the documentation for, I think that would be a > reasonable 'solution'. Perhaps a layout like > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/ could be done without too much >

Re: [bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"

You could be a lot more welcoming on this > case, why so hard on him? I hit the very same thing myself some time ago, > just forgot to speak up myself. That documentation "bug" is the reason meta > programming in GNU make took my too starts, rather than one. IMO, the sugg

[bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #38433 (project make): Paul and Philipp, Daniel has a valid point here. You could be a lot more welcoming on this case, why so hard on him? I hit the very same thing myself some time ago, just forgot to speak up myself. That documentation "bug" is the r

Re: [bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"

On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 13:56 -0800, Daniel Wagenaar wrote: > I appreciate your correction, but I still feel that the documentation > on the website would be more helpful if it at least mentioned that > older versions of make fail quietly when there is a "=" at the end of > t

Re: [bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"

On 02/27/2013 02:07 PM, Philip Guenther wrote: On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Wagenaar wrote: I appreciate your correction, but I still feel that the documentation on the website would be more helpful if it at least mentioned that older versions of make fail quietly when there is a

Re: [bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Wagenaar wrote: > I appreciate your correction, but I still feel that the documentation on the > website would be more helpful if it at least mentioned that older versions > of make fail quietly when there is a "=" at the end of the li

Re: [bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"

On 02/27/2013 11:30 AM, Philip Guenther wrote: On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Daniel Wagenaar wrote: The example for the "eval" function in the documentation at http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Eval-Function.html contains a syntax error that causes the examp

[bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"

7;s a valid statement in version GNU make 3.82. You must be using an older version of GNU make. Note that the online documentation always refers to the latest released version of GNU make. You should be referring to the documentation that came with your version of GNU make, if you're not using th

Re: [bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Daniel Wagenaar wrote: > The example for the "eval" function in the documentation at > http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Eval-Function.html contains > a syntax error that causes the example to fail quietly. The probl

[bug #38433] Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define"

URL: <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?38433> Summary: Example for "eval" in documentation contains error with "define" Project: make Submitted by: wagenaar Submitted on: Wed 27 Feb 2013 07:25:20 PM GMT

documentation issue with $^

$^ and $+ are defined twice in the documentation (http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html). The second time, it does not mention the exclusion of order-only dependencies, implying they are included. $^ The names of all the prerequisites, with spaces between them. For prerequisites

[bug #37970] Misleading documentation of LDFLAGS variable

URL: <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?37970> Summary: Misleading documentation of LDFLAGS variable Project: make Submitted by: None Submitted on: Fri 21 Dec 2012 01:14:08 PM UTC Severity: 3 - Normal Item

Re: Possible bug (documentation or make itself) not sure

; make: *** No rule to make target `export', needed by `datapluglib'. Stop. > dev400t@dev400t-desktop:~/devel/make_test$ make --version > GNU Make 3.81 No, the docs are correct *for the current version of GNU make*. You need to either a) upgrade to the current version, or b) read

Possible bug (documentation or make itself) not sure

In section 6.11: Target-specific variable assignments can be prefixed with any or all of the special keywords export, override, or private; these apply their normal behavior to this instance of the variable only. the way I read it is that you can specify one or many special keywords. If I try

Re: order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 06/12/2012 02:06 AM, Philip Guenther wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Stefano Lattarini >> wrote: >> ... >>> I was hoping to be able to the order-only prerequisites to enforce ordering >>> between .PHONY targets.  At this

  1   2   >