[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: A possible bug (or a feature) : dependencies shown in dry-run but n
From: |
David Mentre |
Subject: |
RE: A possible bug (or a feature) : dependencies shown in dry-run but not rebuilt |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:21:06 +0100 |
Hello Mr Smith,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul D. Smith [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: mercredi 13 novembre 2002 16:17
> I tried your environment on my Debian GNU/Linux box with GNU
> make 3.79.1
> and it worked fine for me: when I ran "make" everything was
> rebuilt and
> when I ran "make x.o", x.o was rebuilt.
I'll try on my own debian box at home. Good idea.
> You might also try the newest version, GNU make 3.80, to see if that
> helps.
Yes, I'll try that.
> You should use "make -d" to find out why make considers them
> up to date,
> then if you don't understand it post _selected_ sections of the output
> (it's too long to post all of it, just pick the relevant lines) and
> we'll take a look.
ok. I've done the following steps:
- touch x.h
- make -dr x.o
Here is (part of) the result ouput. I've marked lines that I found strange.
Updating goal targets....
Considering target file `x.o'.
Looking for an implicit rule for `x.o'.
Trying pattern rule with stem `x'.
Trying implicit prerequisite `x.c'.
Found an implicit rule for `x.o'.
[...]
Finished prerequisites of target file `x.c'.
Prerequisite `x.h' is newer than target `x.c'. <<<<---- ok
Prerequisite `perf.h' is newer than target `x.c'.
Prerequisite `reas.h' is older than target `x.c'.
Prerequisite `seg_desc.h' is older than target `x.c'.
Prerequisite `info.h' is older than target `x.c'.
Prerequisite `decoding.h' is older than target `x.c'.
Prerequisite `misc.h' is newer than target `x.c'.
Prerequisite `autotest.h' is older than target `x.c'.
Must remake target `x.c'.
Successfully remade target file `x.c'.
Finished prerequisites of target file `x.o'.
Prerequisite `x.c' is older than target `x.o'. <<--- ok
No need to remake target `x.o'. <<<<---- ?!??! ---- why?
make: `x.o' is up to date.
Do you think that it could be related to my use of "generic" rules for
compiling %.c files?
Any way, many thanks for your answers and pointers.
I'll try to investigate further and I'll inform you if I have more info.
Best regards,
d. mentré
--
David Mentré <address@hidden> - Research engineer
Mitsubishi Electric ITE-TCL / European Telecommunication Research Laboratory
Phone : +33 2 99 84 16 78
- RE: A possible bug (or a feature) : dependencies shown in dry-run but not rebuilt,
David Mentre <=