[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bug #18617] Better debugging facilities: tracing rule invocation.
From: |
Stefano Sabatini |
Subject: |
Re: [bug #18617] Better debugging facilities: tracing rule invocation. |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:45:12 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
In data mercoledì 2008-09-17 14:26:33 +0000, Dave Korn ha scritto:
>
> Follow-up Comment #5, bug #18617 (project make):
>
> I would like to draw the attention of everyone in this thread to
>
> http://bashdb.sourceforge.net/remake/
> "Remake - GNU Make with comprehensible tracing and a debugger"
>
> I find it an invaluable enhancement to make when debugging complex makefiles
> full of generated code. Give it a try: you won't look back once you've
> discovered how much easier life is when you can single-step through the source
> of a makefile, set breakpoints, inspect variables and see the return values
> from called functions.
I tried it and I found it awesome.
BTW what is the problem with integrating it into mainline make?
Having to use make for real compilation and having to use another tool
for testing/debuggin is rather brittle...
> Stefano:
>
> "It doesn't tell which the implicit rule is", are you sure? The trace shows
>
> > Trying implicit prerequisite `assert.cxx'.
> > Found an implicit rule for
> >
> `/home/stefano/src/reilabs/flash2sip/contrib/src/ptlib_2.2.1/lib/obj_linux_x86_r/assert.o'.
>
> Therefore the implicit rule it is referring to must be of the form
>
> %.o: %.cxx
>
> mustn't it?
Yes, but yet again it would be nice also to see *which* is the
implicit rule used, rather than leave the user having to guess it.
Regards.
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [bug #18617] Better debugging facilities: tracing rule invocation.,
Stefano Sabatini <=