[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fatal errors for missing include files.
From: |
Paul D. Smith |
Subject: |
Re: fatal errors for missing include files. |
Date: |
Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:50:01 -0400 |
%% "Ian Dunbar" <address@hidden> writes:
id> ~> make
id> sub.mk:1: subsub.mk: No such file or directory
id> make: *** No rule to make target `subsub.mk'. Stop.
id> Actually though on second thought, maybe it doesn't contradict
id> that statement. Has it passed the "no fatal errors" stage, and is
id> now trying to generate all the submakefiles as required by the
id> last part of the statement "... make will try to remake any that
id> are out of date or don't exist"?
Correct.
id> In general, making the lowest file first seems like unusual
id> behavour. Shouldn't make know that it should regenerate included
id> files from the top down? It seems like it is implied by the
id> functionality of the include keyword. Otherwise it could end up
id> re-generating a lot of unneeded include files. Or is this intended
id> behaviour? (why?)
I'm not sure what you mean by "the top down".
You have removed the file (subsub.prj) that make could build the
subsub.mk file from, so when make tries to build subsub.mk it can't find
a rule to use. So it reports that there is no rule to make that target.
I don't see how the order of rebuilding of makefiles can solve that
problem, since you have no rule that tells how to build a .prj file.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <address@hidden> Find some GNU make tips at:
http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist