This isn't a complete answer, but it provides more context.
As @lawlist has shown, this matching is determined by the gnu regexp in compilation-error-regexp-alist-alist, which is currently defined as follows:
(gnu
;; The first line matches the program name for
;; PROGRAM:SOURCE-FILE-NAME:LINENO: MESSAGE
;; format, which is used for non-interactive programs other than
;; compilers (e.g. the "jade:" entry in compilation.txt).
;; This first line makes things ambiguous with output such as
;; "foo:344:50:blabla" since the "foo" part can match this first
;; line (in which case the file name as "344"). To avoid this,
;; the second line disallows filenames exclusively composed of
;; digits.
;; Similarly, we get lots of false positives with messages including
;; times of the form "HH:MM:SS" where MM is taken as a line number, so
;; the last line tries to rule out message where the info after the
;; line number starts with "SS". --Stef
;; The core of the regexp is the one with *?. It says that a file name
;; can be composed of any non-newline char, but it also rules out some
;; valid but unlikely cases, such as a trailing space or a space
;; followed by a -, or a colon followed by a space.
;;
;; The "in \\|from " exception was added to handle messages from Ruby.
,(rx
bol
(? (| (regexp "[[:alpha:]][-[:alnum:].]+: ?")
(regexp "[ \t]+\\(?:in \\|from\\)")))
(group-n 1 (: (regexp "[0-9]*[^0-9\n]")
(*? (| (regexp "[^\n :]")
(regexp " [^-/\n]")
(regexp ":[^ \n]")))))
(regexp ": ?")
(group-n 2 (regexp "[0-9]+"))
(? (| (: "-"
(group-n 4 (regexp "[0-9]+"))
(? "." (group-n 5 (regexp "[0-9]+"))))
(: (in ".:")
(group-n 3 (regexp "[0-9]+"))
(? "-"
(? (group-n 4 (regexp "[0-9]+")) ".")
(group-n 5 (regexp "[0-9]+"))))))
":"
(| (: (* " ")
(group-n 6 (| "FutureWarning"
"RuntimeWarning"
"Warning"
"warning"
"W:")))
(: (* " ")
(group-n 7 (| (regexp "[Ii]nfo\\(?:\\>\\|rmationa?l?\\)")
"I:"
(: "[ skipping " (+ nonl) " ]")
"instantiated from"
"required from"
(regexp "[Nn]ote"))))
(: (* " ")
(regexp "[Ee]rror"))
(: (regexp "[0-9]?")
(| (regexp "[^0-9\n]")
eol))
(regexp "[0-9][0-9][0-9]")))
1 (2 . 4) (3 . 5) (6 . 7))
That alist is preceded with the comment:
;; If you make any changes to `compilation-error-regexp-alist-alist',
;; be sure to run the ERT test in test/lisp/progmodes/compile-tests.el.
;; emacs -batch -l compile-tests.el -f ert-run-tests-batch-and-exit
The current gnu test cases from compile-tests.el are:
;; gnu
foo.c:88: message
../foo.c:88: W: message
/tmp/foo.c:88:warning message
foo/bar.py:8: FutureWarning message
foo.py:88: RuntimeWarning message
foo.c:88:I: message
foo.c:88.23: note: message
foo.c:88.23: info: message
foo.c:88:23:information: message
foo.c:88.23-45: Informational: message
foo.c:88-23: message
;; The next one is not in the GNU standards AFAICS.
;; Here we seem to interpret it as LINE1-LINE2.COL2.
foo.c:88-45.37: message
foo.c:88.23-9.17: message
jade:dbcommon.dsl:133:17:E: missing argument for function call
G:/cygwin/dev/build-myproj.xml:54: Compiler Adapter 'javac' can't be found.
file:G:/cygwin/dev/build-myproj.xml:54: Compiler Adapter 'javac' can't be found.
{standard input}:27041: Warning: end of file not at end of a line; newline inserted
boost/container/detail/flat_tree.hpp:589:25: [ skipping 5 instantiation contexts, use -ftemplate-backtrace-limit=0 to disable ]
to which we can add the two cases from this question (I've truncated the file paths, as that makes no difference).
Makefile.inc:5:0 (41): no match found, expected: ":", [ \t] or [\p{Latin}-_.${}/%0123456789]
Makefile.inc:14:24 (268): rule include_dir: include
We can then test these with M-x re-builder either by switching it to rx mode to use the original form1, or for the default read mode using (cadr (assoc 'gnu compilation-error-regexp-alist-alist)):
"^\\(?:[[:alpha:]][-[:alnum:].]+: ?\\|[ \t]+\\(?:in \\|from\\)\\)?\\(?1:\\(?:[0-9]*[^0-9\n]\\)\\(?:[^\n :]\\| [^-/\n]\\|:[^ \n]\\)*?\\)\\(?:: ?\\)\\(?2:[0-9]+\\)\\(?:-\\(?4:[0-9]+\\)\\(?:\\.\\(?5:[0-9]+\\)\\)?\\|[.:]\\(?3:[0-9]+\\)\\(?:-\\(?:\\(?4:[0-9]+\\)\\.\\)?\\(?5:[0-9]+\\)\\)?\\)?:\\(?: *\\(?6:\\(?:FutureWarning\\|RuntimeWarning\\|W\\(?::\\|arning\\)\\|warning\\)\\)\\| *\\(?7:[Ii]nfo\\(?:\\>\\|rmationa?l?\\)\\|I:\\|\\[ skipping \\.+ ]\\|instantiated from\\|required from\\|[Nn]ote\\)\\| *\\(?:[Ee]rror\\)\\|[0-9]?\\(?:[^0-9\n]\\|$\\)\\|[0-9][0-9][0-9]\\)"
This confirms the issue: All of the original test cases match, but only one of the new cases matches.
As @lawlist identified, changing that [0-9]? makes a difference. If we change that to [0-9]* then all of the cases are now matched; however there's so much going on in this pattern that it's currently unclear to me whether or not that's the correct fix.
In the failure case:
Makefile.inc:14:24 (268): rule include_dir: include
The line number is 14, but it's the subsequent 24 which is failing to match the zero-or-one-digit [0-9]?. Reducing that to a single digit (as seen in the case which worked) means the original regexp matches the line. (Use C-cC-u to ensure re-builder picks up the change, if necessary.)
That [0-9]? dates back to commit 0ab31e4a9ff from 2006, and was part of a change intended to "rule out false positives due to time stamps":
we get lots of false positives with messages including times of the
form "HH:MM:SS" where MM is taken as a line number, so the last line
tries to rule out message where the info after the line number
starts with "SS".
1 You'll need make the top-level sequence explicit. Refer to the discussion of this gotcha in https://emacs.stackexchange.com/a/5577/454
