This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: ^c now disallowed? (was Re: "cd dir && $(MAKE)", not "cd dir; $(MAKE)")

From: DJ Delorie <dj at delorie dot com>
To: dje at transmeta dot com
Cc: neroden at twcny dot rr dot com, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 15:46:38 -0500
Subject: Re: ^c now disallowed? (was Re: "cd dir && $(MAKE)", not "cd dir; $(MAKE)")
References: <200212271914.LAA04845@casey.transmeta.com><200212271947.gBRJlK125992@envy.delorie.com> <15884.47902.892560.313412@casey.transmeta.com>

> To me there are legitimate reasons why a developer would want
> "make ; ^c ; make" to work.

I agree.

> If by "key files" you mean "the target of the rule" I _think_ we're ok.

I'm thinking that some rules might alter non-target files (like
config.cache for configure), which might cause problems.

References:
- ^c now disallowed? (was Re: "cd dir && $(MAKE)", not "cd dir; $(MAKE)")
  - From: Doug Evans
- Re: ^c now disallowed? (was Re: "cd dir && $(MAKE)", not "cd dir; $(MAKE)")
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: ^c now disallowed? (was Re: "cd dir && $(MAKE)", not "cd dir; $(MAKE)")
  - From: Doug Evans

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]