[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120607131814.GZ163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:18:14 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] makefile: add silent rules
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 03:12:48PM +0200, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
>
>
> > make V=1 to disable them
>
> <snip>
>
> This was NACK'ed a month ago. I'm with the NACK crew, I hardly find
> this useful, and I like fast scrolling terminals :)
I'm not as adamant on it, but I'm also in the group that doesn't like
this "new style" of makefile output. Most annoyingly, when something
goes wrong, you have to re-run make with V=1 to see what was actually
happening. Oftentimes I find I want to rerun a command with -S instead
of -c (to examine the generated asm) or with different CFLAGS when
dealing with an unexpected ICE or similar.
By the way, I'm also against using $(RM), $(LN), etc.; as far as I can
tell that's useless Windows pandering, since these commands are
entirely standard on POSIX. $(INSTALL) might make sense (since it's
not specified in the standards) but it would be a low priority. The
reason $(AR) and $(RANLIB) exist is for the purpose of cross
compiling (although in reality, .a files are mostly arch-agnostic and
the host ar probably works fine for the target).
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
