[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Conditional variable based on silent or not silent?

From: Nate Bargmann
Subject: Re: Conditional variable based on silent or not silent?
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 11:55:06 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

* On 2013 08 Jun 09:48 -0500, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 06/08/2013 02:58 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > On 08/06/2013 12:58, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> >>
> >> As 'make V=1' can be used to override the silent rules created from
> >> 'configure',
> >>
> Actually, it silences the rules created by Automake; the "V=1" can be
> to override, at make runtime, the verbosity level set at configure
> runtime.  Is this what you intended?


> Well, Automake-generated Makefiles set an 'AM_V_P' variable that
> can be used to poll, in the shell code of the user-defined recipes,
> whether make is being run in quiet mode or not.  That is documented
> in the manual.  Is that what you are asking for?  But even if it is,
> see below before proceeding to use it.

Thanks for the tip.

> Diego is perfectly right here.  So, while the above suggestion of mine
> should make it possible to obtain the effect you wanted, you should be
> aware that doing so is a bad idea, since it mostly defies the purpose
> of silent-rules.  What you need is another switch, orthogonal to those
> related to silent-rules, that the user can tweak to enable/disable
> warnings from Swig at will.

Again, as in my other reply, the warnings normally seen are known and
harmless for our purposes.  It's any new ones that would be of concern.

> Some GNU projects (e.g., coreutils) do something similar to give
> the user control on the activation of GCC warnings, by providing
> a custom configure '--enable-gcc-warnings'; you might want to look
> at that idiom for inspiration.

Thanks, Stefano.  I will have a look.

- Nate


"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]