RE: Probably stupid make question

[Phil Smith <phil@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, I said it was probably stupid :-)

Ok, I'll dig into it some more. It seemed worth asking in case everyone said "Hey, dip****, use the -XYZ option".

...phsiii
-----Original Message-----
From: cygwin-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cygwin-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Dessent
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:14 PM
To: cygwin@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Probably stupid make question

Phil Smith wrote:

> We're perverting CMake and Cygwin make to use a cross-compiler for z/OS (IBM mainframe). We've beaten it mostly into submission, but are hitting an issue with definitions being passed.  Cygwin make seems to be passing them in the format:
>         -Dvarname value
> rather than:
>         -Dvarname=value
> and the cross-compiler doesn't like that much. Some discussion with more *IX-savvy friends suggests that the "blank" format is older, and is deprecated due to ambiguity (does "-Dvarname abc.c xyz.c" mean "set varname to abc.c and compile xyz.c", or "set varname to 1 and compile abc.c and xyz.c"?).

I think you're going to have to be more specific, such as providing a
testcase that reproduces the problem.  This must be due to some aspect
of cmake, because there's nothing in plain make (AFAIK) that has
anything to do with how -D or any other parameter is passed to any tool
-- make executes commands exactly as written in the Makefile, no more no
less.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/