Re: Make-alpha Digest, Vol 47, Issue 1

[Bill Cox]

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: bob racko <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 08:23:56 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: A way of finding out what went wrong when a build fails
>
> I like the dump output from make - it contains a lot of good
>  stuff. Stuff I would like to see - but only if a recipe fails
> in a way that is going to cause make to give up.
>
> I am working on a huge build environment - so getting
> a dump from every sub-make is not going to work.
> It is non-interactive.
>
> To complicate the constraints, -jN is used.
>
> I would like to be selective about the dump output under certain conditions.
>
> If I can avoid it - I would like to be able to specify the conditions
> without
> having to pepper the makefiles with additional code.

The  simplest condition that I can think of would be to say 'on
command error', which would trigger make to save its state when a
command error occurs, and it would start to log *everything* as if
the various silent options were all false.  An alternative condition
might be 'on make error', and so on.

I too have used make on large Makefile trees, and I once submitted
a patch which would negate all of the silencing options.  One version
had a new option called '--always-print-commands' to activate it.  If
this seems useful to the list, I could dust off the patch and resubmit.

So here's my related question: "Is it useful to suppress all silencing
options, and if so, how should it be invoked?".  I'd love to get this
functionality into the product, and it's not that complex.

Bill

>
> Often I am just concerned about the current values of certain variables.
> I know that Bmake has MAKE_PRINT_VAR_ON_ERROR for this.
> Much of the code is contributed so I don't have the choice
>  of calling some other (potentially incompatible) make tool.
>
> I can see that special variable being useful
> along with a function like the one proposed in
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-make/2007-10/msg00004.html
>
> However, the question remains how do I get the function or rule
> to be called only if make is about to exit with failure?
> Then there is the further issue of makefile peppering among
> reams of contributed makefiles which I had hoped to avoid.
>
> On occasion I want to see what rules or targets were being followed
> as well as which sub make this was. I don't need to invent a new
> programming language (from the many I already had to learn)
> and jumping to an interactive debugger is not an option.
>
> If this can be done without changes to make, please elucidate me
> and I will apologize for taking your time.
>
> If this requires a patch, I would like it if the patch were small
> and not cause a rewrite of every puts()/printf(). I find
> https://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?5362
> to be too invasive.
>
> Ok- so much for the requirements.
> The nice part is I don't need help although I am enlisting
> those on this list to see if perhaps adding further requirements
> or desires will, in fact, simplify the implementation. I do desire
> for the final result to become part of GNU make for everyone to use.
>
> -bobr
>
>
>
>
>  ________________________________
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
> _______________________________________________
>  Make-alpha mailing list
>  address@hidden
>  http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-alpha
>
>