Re: junk after endif

Harti Brandt wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Scott Long wrote:
> 
> SL>Harti Brandt wrote:
> SL>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Chuck Robey wrote:
> SL>> 
> SL>> CR>in making the environment for my new sparc box, I'm building a new
> SL>> buildworld
> SL>> CR>for the sparc, that that's giving me REAMS of useless errors about "junk
> SL>> at
> SL>> CR>the end of the line", you know what it is from watching the error come
> SL>> up
> SL>> CR>from cpp listings...except that these come from make, not from C code...
> SL>> CR>having this come up in the situation I'm in, with zero (besides merely a
> SL>> CR>KERNCONF) in the /etc/make.conf, then having this error come up so often
> SL>> it
> SL>> CR>obscures the real listing is egregiously crazy.
> SL>> CR>
> SL>> CR>So, the fix falls into one of these categories:
> SL>> CR>
> SL>> CR>1) there is a magic incantation I don't know, and don't have time to
> SL>> hunt
> SL>> CR>down, that kills this warning in make, and I need to know this, but
> SL>> that's
> SL>> CR>not the fix ... the fix is (possibly) to make the default action that
> SL>> this is
> SL>> CR>NOT a warning.
> SL>> CR>
> SL>> CR>2) I know that many folks like to do this to endif's, but it's an
> SL>> warning in
> SL>> CR>C, and we should tell the folks who like it "tough" and take them out.
> SL>> CR>
> SL>> CR>However it's decided, to squish the warning or to squish the tags, it's
> SL>> CR>unacceptable to leave those semantically useless warnings laying about,
> SL>> CR>hiding real problems.
> SL>> 
> SL>> These warnings come only if you build with a /usr/share/mk which is not
> SL>> up-to-date and an up-to-date make. (It may also be that you slipped with
> SL>> your sources into the small window between the two commits).
> SL>> 
> SL>> As far as I can see this can legally happen only when building 5.4 or
> SL>> earlier on a current box (I have committed the fix to /usr/share/mk in
> SL>> RELENG_5, but cannot do this because this doesn't seem to fall under the
> SL>> committable categories for RELENG_5_*).
> SL>> 
> SL>> harti
> SL>
> SL>In general, I think that this warning is a bad idea.  It (along with the
> SL>NO_FOO wanrings that are also a bad idea) make it very hard to build
> SL>prior releases and snapshots from 6-current.  I really cannot see how
> SL>this warning benefits anyone or solves a problem; all it does it create
> SL>an unneccesary mess.  Yes, building things like I've described here
> SL>isn't "supported", but putting up needless roadblocks and making the
> SL>definition of "supported" be very narrow makes using FreeBSD very hard.
> SL>Please eliminate this warning, or put it under a 'pendatic' flag only.
> 
> I found at least one incarnation of an expression after an .else in a port 
> Makefile where the writer obviously expected the expression to be 
> processed. The problem was that the author wrote .else instead of .elif. 
> We found also a number of incarnations of .elseif statements that make 
> silently happend to process as .else. Makefiles are inherently hard to 
> debug (because of the crufty syntax and the sloppiness of our make), so 
> every warning maybe helpful. I agree that this should be under the control 
> of an option and, in fact, I was going to implement just that - its just 
> not that high on my list. But as you ask so nicely about it I can move it 
> up the list and do it in the next days.
> 
> Regards,
> harti

Thanks a lot!

Scott