On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:17:45PM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
>
> Yes, exactly.
>
> In fact, it was a regression in 3.79.1 which allowed it to "work" there,
> and I fixed that bug in 3.80. If you use older versions of GNU make
> you'll see they work like 3.80, not 3.79.1.
Thanks!
Then I apolog
%% Ted Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ts> The essence of what you are asking is, "Why isn't the '@'
ts> indication of no-echo respected by Make's $(call ) function and
ts> applied to the entire call?
ts> IIUC, the answer is that you need to consider how "define/endef"
ts> differs fro
On 20 Jun 2003, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Posted the following a few weeks ago - wondered if anyone could explain it.
> I have stripped down the background info a bit - so the essense is kept.
>
>>
>> The culprint is the extra line:
>> "echo hello again"
>> It should not be there
Hi all.
Posted the following a few weeks ago - wondered if anyone could explain it.
I have stripped down the background info a bit - so the essense is kept.
TIA,
Sam
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:50:53PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> The following makefile exhibit the problem, also at my ins
I have a few reports that when building the Linux 2.5.70 kernel
the build system is more noisy than supposed to be.
The problem is tracked down to usage of canned command sequences.
The following is from the makefiles:
#General definition (scripts/Makefile.lib)
if_changed_rule = $(if $(strip
With make 3.79.1, on both IRIX and Linux x86, canned command sequences
are not verbose; even commands not preceded by @ are not shown.
For example:
define run-yacc
yacc $(firstword $^)
mv y.tab.c $@
endef
%.c: %.y
$(run-yacc)
is not the same thing (for output) as
$.c: %.y
yacc
