Subject: Re: make and .exe targets
From: "J. J. Farrell" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] (Suhaib M. Siddiqi)
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 01:02:49 -0800 (PST)

> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> From: "Suhaib M. Siddiqi" <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:04:19 -0500

I don't think this conversation is on-topic for the mailing list,
which is why I sent my last message to you privately. It is
generally considered rude to send private messages to a public
forum without permission, though I have no objection in this
case if you think the list will be interested. I'm replying
publicly now to correct a couple of false statements you made
about me. If you wish to pursue this further, I suggest we do
so privately.

> First of all, you picked $PATH from one message.
> There were several messages I sent directly to him.
> PATH was the very first suggestion.

I did not 'pick $PATH from one message'. I read the thread as
it had arrived in my mailbox, and replied to the most recent
message that I had seen at the time. PATH may have been your
very first suggestion, but it was obviously still current since
you instructed John to

    Read my previous message on how to define $PATH.

> I do know what AIX is and how it
> differs from
> other UNIX flavors.  I am very well aware of it.

In that case, since John had already said he had used make
under AIX, why did you say

    Cygwin is a UNIX like environment. Therefore, to use it
    effectively you should have some knowledge of UNIX.

and

    Cygwin follows UNIX rules not AIX. You can download a
    source code for SUN, SGI or LINUX, look carefully on the
    Makefile and you will know how to write a Makefile for a
    UNIX system. That makefile will work under Cygwin too.

> Beside you language has been absolutely nonsense.

Please explain what was nonsense about my language.

> If you donot know the
> whole story
> then you do not jump and start braging about something.

I am sorry if you thought I was bragging; that was not my
intention. I don't understand why you thought I was - could
you explain, please.

> As I said $PATH was the verey first suggestion.  I also wrote to him
> about
> configuration problems.

> It is hard to say anything unless one sees the system.

This is sometimes true, though with an informative bug report
such as in this case it is usually possible to at least remove
some of the possibilities. John included his very simple and
straightforward makefile, and a clear explanation that when
ld.exe was invoked via gcc from the command line it worked, but
when it was invoked via gcc from make it failed to open its
output file. From this we can easily draw a couple of conclusions:

1) the problem is almost certainly nothing to do with the makefile.

   Since make has successfully invoked gcc with a command line
   that was valid enough for it to invoke ld with a command valid
   enough for it to try to open its output file, the makefile must
   be basically OK. The only reasonably possible flaw with the
   makefile is that it may have generated an invalid filename for
   the ld output; but the filename in the error message looks
   fine, and the makefile is very simple and does no tricky
   filename manipulation.

2) the problem is almost certainly nothing to do with $PATH.

   When built directly from the command line, it works. This
   means that the PATH value at the command line is OK. This
   same value of PATH is in use when make is invoked, and make
   gets as far as successfully invoking ld.exe, so PATH appears
   to be OK within make. The problem is that ld.exe can't open
   its output file, and that has nothing to do with the setting
   of PATH.

> Using his makefile and source I could compile it.  That's what I wrote
> to him in one of the email.

On the list you said you couldn't get the makefile to work;
this was due to a problem you introduced when you copied it.

> Yes, you said unfortunately you do not know why make is not working.

I did not say that - I would hardly have done so since the
evidence suggested that make was working fine. What I said
was "I've no idea why, unfortunately" in reference to ld being
unable to open its output file.

> My answer is still in computing world there is nothing like
> "unfortunate."
> Something does not work because of mistake.  That means "there is no
> unfortunate
> configuration"

This is an unfortunate misunderstanding. The sentence meant
"I do not know the cause of the problem, and it is unfortunate
that I do not know it; if I were fortunate enough to know the
answer, I would be able to help by giving it". I'm sorry if my
language was not adequately clear.

> Beside, you just picked couple of mails from mail archive and talked
> absolutely irrelevant.

I did not consult any mail archives or pick a couple of mails;
I simply replied to the most recent message I had seen in the
thread.

I do not think my comments were irrelevant. I made them in the
hope of avoiding any more time and effort being wasted pursuing
things which were almost certainly irrelevant to the problem.
If John had taken your advice, he would have been wasting his
time on a number of things:

 - studying UNIX
 - studying whatever you had sent to him previously about $PATH
 - checking his $PATH configuration
 - downloading various UNIX source codes
 - studying the makefiles in those sources

This would have been pointless when it was clear that he knew
UNIX at least well enough to write a correct simple makefile,
and that the problem was incredibly unlikely to be anything to
do with either $PATH or the makefile.

> To answer your question about AIX,

I did not ask any question about AIX.

> I have 3 AIX, 4 SGI origin and one
> SUN right in my office.
> I am also the System Information in-charge for my company.  I do believe
> I know the differences in different UNIX flavors.

Then why did you tell someone who had used make on AIX that he
needed to have "some knowledge of UNIX", that "Cygwin follows
UNIX rules not AIX" and that he needed to learn "how to write
a Makefile for a UNIX system"?

Regards,
		jjf

--   
Want to unsubscribe from this list?                             
Send a message to [email-masked]