Re: Fw: [PATCH] Enable automake silent rules

[C Howland <cc1964t@gmail.com>]

>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Newlib <newlib-bounces+craig.howland=caci.com@sourceware.org> on
> behalf of Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 7, 2021 9:16 AM
> *To:* newlib@sourceware.org <newlib@sourceware.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [PATCH] Enable automake silent rules
>
>
> On Dec  7 12:56, Jon Turney wrote:
> > Use AM_SILENT_RULES, to enable automake silent rules (by default), if we
> > are using a version of automake which supports it (>=1.11).
> >
> > Silent rules can be disabled by configuring with
> '--disable-silent-rules',
> > or invoking 'make V=1'.
> >
> > For ease of reviewing, this patch doesn't contain configure and
> > Makefile.in regeneration.
> >
> > Future work: There are a few compilations which are not silenced by
> > this, as they use custom rules.
> > ---
> >  newlib/acinclude.m4 | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/newlib/acinclude.m4 b/newlib/acinclude.m4
> > index 05e545c9f..42af6b548 100644
> > --- a/newlib/acinclude.m4
> > +++ b/newlib/acinclude.m4
> > @@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ AC_SUBST(newlib_basedir)
> >  AC_CANONICAL_HOST
> >
> >  AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([cygnus no-define 1.9.5])
> > +m4_ifdef([AM_SILENT_RULES], [AM_SILENT_RULES(yes)])
> >
> >  # FIXME: We temporarily define our own version of AC_PROG_CC.  This is
> >  # copied from autoconf 2.12, but does not call AC_PROG_CC_WORKS.  We
> > --
> > 2.34.1
>
> Nice, please push.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Corinna
>
>      Umm, not so fast?  Some questions.
     Should this really be made the new default?  OK, Corinna is on board
with that.  I personally don't want it as a default because I want to see
command line arguments.  Easy for me to get different, but only knowing
how.  That leads to the next question.
     Given that silent were made default, it is a big change in terms of
what people see.  How would you know to change it?  (New feature, most
people are far from experts in automake.)  Therefore, the directions most
definitely would need something added that explains it.  (Without knowing
about it, I can see it taking someone a long time to chase down why they
suddenly lost the make output.)  Something along the lines of Jon's
explanation in the patch email needs to end up in README and probably also
printed by a configure help.
                      Craig