Re: Report to stdout like Linux kernel compilation does

[Tim Van Holder]

On 2008-04-11 16:28, John Calcote wrote:
> Stefan,
>
> I asked this very question a few years ago on this list.
> Interestingly, my examples came not from the Linux kernel build
> process, but from Windows builds, which use a similar output format. I
> love this format because warnings and errors are obvious, and yet you
> get enough output per file to tell you that something's going on. The
> real benefit of this output format is that WARNINGS are obvious.
> Often, in standard GNU/Unix/Linux build processes, warnings just zip
> right by without much notice.

Part of that is that I expect a significant number of open source 
developers use emacs or similar environments that clearly highlight 
errors/warnings. So the full compilation commands don't normally get in 
the way, and are always there to look at for detailed info, without 
having to rebuild with a special switch (or regenerate the makefile 
using a special switch).

> Now -- that said, I really see nothing wrong with my original request,
> in the form of an Automake switch. It would be nice to be able to tell
> Automake to build Makefiles that generate this sort of output.
> Unfortunately, you and I aren't going to get much agreement, I think.

This would mean that if I wanted to get the full commands back for 
debugging, I'd have to rerun automake with a new option, potentially 
triggering lots of rebuilds (if there are rules with Makefile as a 
dependency).
In addition, I would expect such an option to be quite invasive (most 
likely requiring changes to all .am fragments). So it would be hard to 
maintain, with only a small set of actual users.

> Perhaps, if you were to write a patch to Autoconf, providing a macro
> or switch that generates such Makefiles... This also the GNU way. :)

Of course, build the feature without breaking anything else, and it will 
exist for as long as someone is willing to maintain it :D