Mail Archives: djgpp/2013/07/19/05:10:00
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 17:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: rugxulo AT gmail DOT com
>
> On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:25:02 PM UTC-5, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
> > > From: RayeR <glaux AT dontspam DOT cz>
> >
> > > > ar(1) is failing. Find out what AR expands to and run it by hand; it
> > > > may give you a better message.
> >
> > > How can I display what command really make executes?
> >
> > Try make V=1
>
> (Not sure if I totally understand this, feel free to correct me.)
>
> I thought GNU make had an opposite of "-s", but I don't see it now. Perhaps
> I was thinking of some other make. Probably, as I now see OpenWatcom's wmake
> has "-sn" (noisy mode: print all commands). Apparently POSIX doesn't specify
> this, so you'll have to either use some non-standard option (and I'm not sure
> "--trace" would help much, if at all) or manually remove '@' and ".SILENT"
> from any Makefiles. However, "make -n" would show you in advance what it
> wants to do.
>
> IIRC, there is also a POSIX shell option ("set -x") that shows every
> command executed, but ./configure usually turns that off, so you'll have
> to delete their doing that or manually set it later on.
V=1 has nothing to do with either Make or configure. It's how the
latest versions of autotools set up the Makefile's they produce: by
default those Makefile's don't show the full commands they are
invoking, but their short "symbolic" representations. E.g.,
CC foo.c
means foo.c is being compiled (with any number of compiler switches,
which are not shown),
CCLD foo.exe
means foo.exe is being linked using the C compiler, etc. Common to
these representations is that the symbol standing for the command is
in all caps. I didn't know about "AR", but seeing it in all caps,
with no options following it, triggered a wild guess that this is what
is going on here.
Now, whenever these shorthands are used, saying "make V=1" ("V" for
"verbose") causes Make to show the fill commands. So that's what I
suggested.
> As for alternatives to CMD, I don't know how well one would work in this
> situation, never tried. Dunno if it overcomes the cmdline limit. However,
> if you're bored enough, feel free to try TCC/LE (formerly 4NT):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Command_(command_line_interpreter)
It doesn't matter what you use, because Windows will always invoke
command.com when it sees a DOS program. That's why DJGPP avoids
calling the shell in the first place.
- Raw text -