Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 08:08:43 +0200 (MET DST) From: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey) To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.ORG (FreeBSD current users) Subject: Re: make fails Message-ID: <199606250608.IAA21579@allegro.lemis.de> In-Reply-To: <199606241643.CAA31225@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Jun 25, 96 02:43:39 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606250608.IAA21579>