[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lmi] MAKEFLAGS [Was: PATCH: tests build fixes for clang]
From: |
Greg Chicares |
Subject: |
[lmi] MAKEFLAGS [Was: PATCH: tests build fixes for clang] |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Mar 2021 01:54:14 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0 |
On 3/9/21 12:18 AM, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 22:57:11 +0000 Greg Chicares <gchicares@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> GC> On 3/8/21 6:39 PM, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
[...]
> GC> > [*] I wonder if there is some way to avoid lmi makefiles overriding my
> make
> GC> > options by explicitly setting MAKEFLAGS. I have to remember to do
> GC> > things like "make local_options==--what-if=/full/path/skeleton.cpp"
> to
> GC> > force recompiling the file instead of just using --what-if normally
> GC> > because of it and this is just annoying.
> GC>
> GC> Relevant excerpts from 'GNUmakefile':
> [...snipped...]
> GC> I don't quite understand the problem. The only 'make' option I
> GC> occasionally use is '-d', and 'make -d some_target' seems to work.
>
> I also regularly use --dry-run and --stop (because when I introduce some
> bug into a wx header of the wx version I'm testing lmi with, I really
> don't want to keep getting the same error several dozen times in a row).
> I very rarely use -d however.
https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html
| The options ‘-C’, ‘-f’, ‘-o’, and ‘-W’ are not put into MAKEFLAGS;
| these options are not passed down [to sub-makefiles].
-C <-> --directory=
-f <-> --makefile=
-o <-> --assume-old=
-W <-> --what-if=
I don't know the rationale for not passing '-o' and '-W' down.
But if '--dry-run' and '--stop' work for you where '--what-if'
doesn't, then perhaps it's because of this.
> GC> Is the solution to change 'GNUmakefile' like this?
> GC>
> GC> +MAKEFLAGS += \
> GC> -MAKEFLAGS := \
[...]
> I thought this would work, but it doesn't.
Okay, then maybe it's because of the "feature" above.
> I have to admit that I've never
> understood why do we bother with MAKEFLAGS here rather than just passing
> these options directly to submake.
I think that was addressed in the
| > GC> Relevant excerpts from 'GNUmakefile':
| > [...snipped...]
above.
- [lmi] PATCH: tests build fixes for clang, Vadim Zeitlin, 2021/03/07
- Re: [lmi] PATCH: tests build fixes for clang, Greg Chicares, 2021/03/07
- Re: [lmi] PATCH: tests build fixes for clang, Vadim Zeitlin, 2021/03/07
- Re: [lmi] PATCH: tests build fixes for clang, Greg Chicares, 2021/03/07
- Re: [lmi] PATCH: tests build fixes for clang, Vadim Zeitlin, 2021/03/07
- Re: [lmi] PATCH: tests build fixes for clang, Greg Chicares, 2021/03/07
- Re: [lmi] PATCH: tests build fixes for clang, Vadim Zeitlin, 2021/03/08
- Re: [lmi] PATCH: tests build fixes for clang, Greg Chicares, 2021/03/08
- Re: [lmi] PATCH: tests build fixes for clang, Vadim Zeitlin, 2021/03/08
- [lmi] MAKEFLAGS [Was: PATCH: tests build fixes for clang],
Greg Chicares <=
- Re: [lmi] MAKEFLAGS, Vadim Zeitlin, 2021/03/09
- Re: [lmi] MAKEFLAGS, Greg Chicares, 2021/03/09
- Re: [lmi] MAKEFLAGS, Vadim Zeitlin, 2021/03/09
- Re: [lmi] MAKEFLAGS, Greg Chicares, 2021/03/09
Re: [lmi] PATCH: tests build fixes for clang, Greg Chicares, 2021/03/08
Re: [lmi] PATCH: tests build fixes for clang, Greg Chicares, 2021/03/08