[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes
From: |
SF Markus Elfring |
Subject: |
Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes |
Date: |
Sun, 18 Jun 2017 21:10:45 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 |
>>> LANG=C make --no-builtin-rules -f parsing-rule-check1.make
>> make: *** No rule to make target 'ast_c.cmo', needed by 'parsing_c.cma'.
>> Stop.
>
> I feel like this is the same question you've already asked,
> and Philip already answered, before.
An other area was eventually easier to explain.
> That means ast_c.cmo doesn't exist,
This description is correct at the moment.
> and make can't come up with a way to build it.
I have got understanding difficulties for the mentioned software behaviour.
> In order to build ast_c.cmo, make could create it (based on your second
> pattern rule) if it can find a way to create ast_c.ml
This one should be treated as an ordinary source file
(for the programming language “OCaml”) and it is usable.
> AND ast_c.cmi.
An “i_compilation” should usually be performed for this file.
> At least one of these files doesn't exist, so it can't just use this rule.
I would expect that the first pattern rule should trigger the desired
compilation for interface descriptions.
> If it's the ast_c.ml file that doesn't exist,
This file is available.
> make gives up immediately since it doesn't know any way to create that file.
This reaction would be fine for an ordinary source file.
> If it's the ast_c.cmi file that doesn't exist,
Such a file was not generated so far.
> make will see if it can be created by using your first pattern rule;
> that means it needs a file ast_c.mli.
This could be appropriate eventually.
I adjusted some make scripts in this software area because of special
implementation details (or open issues). My adjustments are still
incomplete in a few subdirectories.
It seems then that the original make scripts could treat more interface
descriptions as optional somehow.
Would you like to add any more advice to this aspect?
> If that file doesn't exist
This is the case at the moment. I am unsure on how this status will evolve
at such a place.
> and make doesn't know how to build it, so make gives up, and says it
> can't build ast_c.cmo because there are no valid rules that would build it.
This conclusion can be reasonable to some degree.
> To know which of these situations is the case you can either look at the
> contents of your directory, or run make with the "-d" option
I starred at these debug data already for a while.
> and see which file is not able to be built.
It seems that I have got still difficulties to extract desired information
from such a display. I guess that a bigger source file number influences
my view of the discussed software development situation in significant ways.
I am curious if an other representation could make the clarification of
failed dependencies a bit easier (especially for remarkable folder sizes).
Regards,
Markus
- Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/16
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, Philip Guenther, 2017/06/17
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/17
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/18
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, Paul Smith, 2017/06/18
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes,
SF Markus Elfring <=
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, Paul Smith, 2017/06/18
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/18
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, Paul Smith, 2017/06/18
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/19
- Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/20
- Re: How to avoid the double execution of a make info call?, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/22
- Re: How to avoid the double execution of a make info call?, Paul Smith, 2017/06/22
- Re: How to avoid the double execution of a make info call?, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/22
- Re: How to avoid the double execution of a make info call?, Martin Dorey, 2017/06/22
- Re: How to avoid the double execution of a make info call?, SF Markus Elfring, 2017/06/22