On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 09:19 -0700, Raymond Dubler wrote:
> What I need is:
> 1. no warning that blah.d is missing
> 2. same functionality as include blah.d, ie display error and
> terminate of failure
>
> Unless I am missing something in the manual, this is not provided with
> make.
>
> What
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Ed H wrote:
> This is all inspired by/borrowing from
> https://github.com/aostruszka/nonrec-make/,
> but without the symbolic links and separate Rules.mk files in each module
> directory.
Old thread, I know, and I have no time to contribute to the discussion
of "i
>
> From: Edward Welbourne
>To: Ed H
>Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
>Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:21 AM
>Subject: Re: include should be relative to current Makefile
>
>> ifndef TOP
>>
>> include ../Makefile
>>
&
> ifndef TOP
>
> include ../Makefile
>
> else
>
> SUBDIRS =
> TARGETS =
> SRCS =
>
> endif
>
> All of the complexity you allude to can be safely buried in the TOP-level
> Makefiles,
I can't help but think this is an entirely upside-down approach. You
appear to be expecting context's make-file
>
>By the same logic, one can use a (module-specific) variable meaning
>"here" in each sub-directory's make-file fragments; so foo/config.mk
>refers to its source files as $(FOOSRC)/bar.c and so on, rather than
>assuming FOOSRC=. (although that likely remains th
> I think changing gmake's behavior to match cpp's will eliminate the
> need for a lot of hacky farting around to get non-recursive systems
> working smoothly.
I can sympathise. The present behaviour effectively requires one to cd
to (or pass a -C for) the directory of a make file in order to
On 2010-08-29 00:09, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 10:24 +0200, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
>> Is there any way to know a path (absolute, or relative to the primary
>> Makefile) of an included Makefile? In that included Makefile of
>> course.
>
> Look up the documentation for the MAKEFI
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 10:24 +0200, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
> Is there any way to know a path (absolute, or relative to the primary
> Makefile) of an included Makefile? In that included Makefile of
> course.
Look up the documentation for the MAKEFILE_LIST variable in the GNU make
manual.
--
--
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 13:27 -0800, willard wrote:
>
> I am new to this message board... I did not intend to yell...
> Thanks for the info... I hope the Gnu Make developers are listening to
> bug-m...@gnu.org.
> I had a quick look at the CVS tree bug tracking (on sourceforge.net), and I
> didn't s
I am new to this message board... I did not intend to yell...
Thanks for the info... I hope the Gnu Make developers are listening to
bug-m...@gnu.org.
I had a quick look at the CVS tree bug tracking (on sourceforge.net), and I
didn't see anything resembling this issue...
--
View this message i
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:39 AM, willard wrote:
> it's the same if foo.d is not a direct target. It's even worse as make fails
> without ANY error message.
Nice! xxx.h gets marked as failed and the error silenced, and the
silencing applies to all paths to xxx.h and not just the foo.d->xxx.h
path
it's the same if foo.d is not a direct target. It's even worse as make fails
without ANY error message.
Example2:
$ cat bad2.mak
all: foo.ooo
COMPILE=gcc
%.o: %.c
$(COMPILE) -c $<
%.d: %.c
$(COMPILE) -c $< -MM -o $*.d
-include foo.d
foo.ooo: foo.o
ld -o foo.ooo foo.o
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:44 PM, willard wrote:
> this is my example (create the foo.d manually as below)
Well, now that you've shown your whole Makefile, I have a guess as to
why make is behaving as it is. It's tied that the face that you use
foo.d both as an implicit target (by virtue of being
this is my example (create the foo.d manually as below)
$ cat bad.mak
all: foo.d foo.ooo
COMPILE=gcc
%.o: %.c
$(COMPILE) -c $<
%.d: %.c
$(COMPILE) -c $< -MM -o $*.d
-include foo.d
foo.ooo: foo.o
ld -o foo.ooo foo.o
[/cygdrive/d/opentv/tstmake]
$ make -f bad.mak
make:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 8:59 PM, willard wrote:
> When using the "-include filename"(instead of just "include filename"), if
> this filename includes dependencies that are missing, makefile does not show
> those missing dependencies...
>
> For example, if using:
>
> -include foo.d
>
> with foo.d b
Good day,
Just want to follow up with another bug from the same area.
Consider the following makefile:
-include bar
hello:
@echo hello
bar : foo
cp foo bar
Make fails even though the manual says that it will not:
" If you want `make' to simply ignore a makefile which does n
%% Samium Gromoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
sg> In the case when the Makefile include`s an inexisting file it
sg> generates an error message. This is an expected behaviour.
sg> Although in the cases when a rule exists to create the file in
sg> question, wouldn`t it be more expectable (a
%% "Brock, Don E" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
bde> There appears to a problem in the way that GNU make 3.80 on both
bde> Solaris and Windows Y2K works with an undefined include file
bde> name. If a given include file is not found, then make will print
bde> "No such file or directory" and
%% Kovalevich Victor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
kv>
kv>
kv>
kv>
Please don't send HTML to the mailing lists; plain text is just fine.
Thanks!
kv> Hi!
kv> I have one question: can I use 'include' instruction in a make file that
kv> is included by this instruction in an other m
%% Robert Mecklenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
rm> I don't know if this is a cygwin bug or a make bug, so I've sent
rm> to both lists. When the following makefile is run on W2K with the
rm> latest cygwin make (3.79.1) it produces a warning message and
rm> should not.
It works correct
20 matches
Mail list logo
