From: ROBERT_FINLEY AT ntsc DOT navy DOT mil Date: Tue, 05 May 98 10:19:38 EST Message-Id: <9804058943.AA894394660@CCMAIL.NTSC.NAVY.MIL> To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: nate AT cartsys DOT com, djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: RE: Make "Clock Skew" problem. Precedence: bulk My point was that it was the __DJGPP__ (Change 1) which was left out of the original code that made the difference. The original "Change 2" line ("...mtime -1 > now...") worked sometimes to "handle" (whether rightly or wrongly) the warning when Change 1 was added. Both of the other "Change 2-s" ("...mtime-3 > now..." and "mtime > now + 3") handled the warning always (whether rightly or wrongly). Rob Finley -----Original Message----- From: Eli Zaretskii Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 6:48 AM To: ROBERT FINLEY Cc: nate AT cartsys DOT com; djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: RE: Make "Clock Skew" problem. On Mon, 4 May 1998 ROBERT_FINLEY AT ntsc DOT navy DOT mil wrote: > It turns out the Change 1 shuts-up make and Change 2 has no impact. This is a wrong conclusion. Change 1 *includes* Change 2, so it is better to use Change 2 alone (it's simpler). There was no need to test the original ifdef, since DJGPP doesn't define WINDOWS32, so unless you add __DJGPP__ or __MSDOS__, that code won't be compiled into the DJGPP program. > Now, weather or not the messenger has been shot or the problem is > fixed, I don't know. The problem is NOT fixed, you just told Make to ignore it. IMHO, leaving the warning is a better way, since then at least you know something might be wrong and can look closer. If make is shut up, you are just oblivious to potential problems.