[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: win32 compilation of make 4.0 source code

From: Philip Guenther
Subject: Re: win32 compilation of make 4.0 source code
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 22:26:16 -0800
User-agent: Alpine 2.11 (BSO 23 2013-08-11)

On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Mark Brown <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > From: Paul Smith
> > > > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 8:57 PM
> > ...
> > > >  ifneq ($(filter else-if,$(.FEATURES)),else-if)
> > > >    $(error Version $(MAKE_VERSION) does not support else-if)
> > > >  endif
> > > Are you saying that this statement can be placed outside
> > > of a make target recipe command sequence,
> > > and would be executed before the target recipe command sequence ?
> > The answer to your question can be found in the GNU make info pages.
> This is what the new make 4.0 manual says about -trace capability:

So, you're _not_ going to just try the ifneq()...endif example that Paul 
provided?  Gotcha.

> =================================================
> ?--trace? Show tracing information for make execution. Prints the entire
> recipe to be
> executed, even for recipes that are normally silent (due to .SILENT or 
> address@hidden).
> Also prints the makefile name and line number where the recipe was defined,
> and information on why the target is being rebuilt.
> =================================================
> Again, this is a re-paste of the desired output,
> which again you deleted in your reply:

No, it doesn't provide output in that format.  Your suggested output 
format can't be unambiguously parsed when the variables contain 
whitespace, which would make the output much less useful.

> Your role is maintenance of the make project.

I'm sorry, but you appear to suffer misconceptions about the project and 

I have *NO* official role in the project.  I'm just someone that uses it 
and answers some questions on the list.

> It is not your role to solve other people's engineering problems.

Huh.  What gave you the role of deciding what other peoples' roles are?

> When a bug or omission is presented to you, you have
> at least 3 appropriate response options:
> 1) we do not think that is an issue that needs to be solved by make,
> 2) that issue needs to be solved in make, and it is, but in a different way
> from what may be apparent from the documentation or intuitive,
> Read the following link <URL, chapter, section> etc.
> 3) we do think that issue should solved by make, but it has
> yet to be implemented.


Do you have a contract with me or, for that matter, with the GNU make 
project which would let you specify that?  Heck, do you get to specify 
that when you complain to Microsoft about bugs in their tools?

(There are plenty of courteous people that ask questions on this list.  I 
shouldn't stop giving my minimal help in answering their questions just 
because one person stomps in complaining that we must answer questions in 
the way he demands.)


reply via email to

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