leo
I think that at this stage of development it's best to print out the full
commands being executed.
--Josh
That's because not all makefiles use cc_flags.pl
> I think that at this stage of development it's best to print out the full
> commands being executed.
I agree.
Ideally, the best way to avoid warnings is to use -Werror ;-)
--
Lars Balker Rasmussen Consult::Perl
> I don't like the current state of things- it seems to be printing out the
> full compilation commands occasionally, but mostly not.
Its probably a thing of "like it" or "not like it". I prefer to see
warnings and minimal or no compilation status ("make -s")
> I think that at this stage of development it's best to print out the full
> commands being executed.
That's the reason for my argument:
>>- let the work depending on "-s" was given to "make" or not or such
(with s/the/that/ - sorry)
Seeing the actual command is useful and necessary if the build prcoess
has troubles. For most of "normal" changes its more important to get
warnings/errors not hidden by ever repeating command line echos - IMHO.
> --Josh
leo
Yepper. Leo is right. Most of output produced by make is such a bore.
I'm standing for doing these actions as default, namely:
1) we output "Supplying the following c compiler
flags: -Zi -DDEBUGGING-nologo ..."
once at the begining
2) ouput "Building the classes ..." once and a name of each class as it
being maked.
3) then "Linking the libraries: comdlg32.lib advapi32.lib shell32.lib ...."
4) and finally "Building documentation"
And echoing the whole thingy as the case of the --detailed switch being
passed.
It wouldn't be worth anything to type the only switch for who really wants
the full
output.