[MITgcm-devel] Re: [Fwd: Re: latest genmake2 variant]

[Martin Losch]

Sorry, I sent the last email without looking very closely at the make  
results:
1. I attached another make.log, where I executed "make -dd" (more  
debugging information). It seems that make tries to build according  
to a rule .F.o which we do not have.
2. I found that in the Makefile a line is commented in, that used to  
be commented out (line 2682):
> ## This nullifies any default implicit rules concerning these two  
> file types:
> ## %.o : %.F
when I comment out "%.o : %.F" make works. And this is also one of  
the changes of the last check-in, diff -r 1.175 genmake2
> 2598c2685
> < ## %.o : %.F
> ---
> > %.o : %.F


Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: make.log.gz
Type: application/x-gzip
Size: 66058 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-devel/attachments/20081110/a12ffc46/attachment.gz>
-------------- next part --------------

On 10 Nov 2008, at 09:21, Martin Losch wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> here they come. It looks like only the C-files are compiled. When I  
> do "make gad_grad_x.o" (or any other object that is build from a  
> *.F file), then I don't get anything, any response, not even a  
> "target is up to date. With gmake it works!
>
> So I could fix the opt-files for sunos (make/gmake has been a  
> problem in the past, so has awk/gawk), but guess it's better to  
> figure out, why make is not picking up the dependency/decides not  
> to compile anything.
>
> It's difficult for me to help, because the changes to genmake2 are  
> so many. I would be nice to have a genmake2 that could  
> incrementally modify (following your instructions), or maybe you  
> have a SunOS box available?
>
> Martin
>
> <sunos.tgz>
>
> On 9 Nov 2008, at 17:04, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:
>
>> Hi Jean & Martin,
>>
>> The new version of genmake2 works well on most platforms (forward  
>> & adjoint
>> tests), but likely that we have a problem on "rays" &  
>> "solarv" (both SunOS)
>> since not a single test did compile.
>> Martin, could you send us a Makefile (+ make.log ? /  
>> genmake_warnings ?)
>> from each of them ?
>> Thanks,
>> Jean-Michel
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 06:53:00AM -0600, Jean Utke wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> I looked at today's summary and see that now on faulks all but  
>>> one of the
>>> adjoint tests passed.
>>> But then there are failures on aces/eddy etc.  It seem like these  
>>> ran before you put
>>> the "fixed" version in, correct?
>>>
>>> Jean
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MITgcm-devel mailing list
>> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel