From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Jun 24 23:27:27 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id XAA19979
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 23:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from diablo.ppp.de (diablo.ppp.de [193.141.101.34])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA19972
          for <FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 23:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from allegro.lemis.de by diablo.ppp.de with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0uYRai-000Qa9C; Tue, 25 Jun 96 08:27 MET DST
From: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey)
Organisation: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, 36325 Feldatal, Germany
Phone: +49-6637-919123
Fax:   +49-6637-919122
Received: (grog@localhost) by allegro.lemis.de (8.6.9/8.6.9) 
	id IAA21579; Tue, 25 Jun 1996 08:08:43 +0200
Message-Id: <199606250608.IAA21579@allegro.lemis.de>
Subject: Re: make fails
To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 08:08:43 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.ORG (FreeBSD current users)
In-Reply-To: <199606241643.CAA31225@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Jun 25, 96 02:43:39 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Evans writes:
>
>>>> Wouldn't it be more appropriate to print out the ld invocation line
>>>> too?
>>>
>>> No more than to add -v to CFLAGS.
>
>> Well, I'd think that you should either print both the cc -c invocation
>> and the ld invocation, or neither.  It's very confusing to just leave
>> some of them out.  Personally, I'm for having them both there.
>
> No, because the ld -x -r step is just to overcome the inability of cc
> to handle the -x step.

I don't see what that has to do with it.  If you show the command
invocations, you should show the command invocations, whatever their
raison d'être.

>>> @ is often misused in makefiles, but one running current should be
>>> able to run make -n to see exactly what make would do.
>
>> Sure.  How long does a make -n world run for?  Does it really descend
>> properly into all subdirectories?  Who expects this behaviour?  The
>> current situation is just plain misleading.
>
> I don't know about make world because I never run it.  make -n is fast
> but almost useless because it doesn't descend.

That's what I thought.

> The lib behaviour is expected by everyone who understands the
> library makefiles.

Which makes about 20 people?

Greg