Re: trouble with order rules in implicit rules

[Noel Yap]

I think I see.  If I switch the two rules and foo doesn't exist, everything works fine.  But if foo exists and foo/bar doesn't, the same error occurs even if the rule for foo/bar/% comes first.  If this is the defined behaviour, what needs to be done to 
get the action to be fired in the latter scenario?

Thanks,
Noel

Paul D. Smith wrote:

> %% Noel Yap <address@hidden> writes:
>
>   ny> I had thought that the better-matching rule would be the one used.
>
> I don't know what "better-matching" means, but the way make chooses a
> pattern rule is well-defined; from section "Introduction to Pattern
> Rules":
>
>
> >   The order in which pattern rules appear in the makefile is important
> > since this is the order in which they are considered.  Of equally
> > applicable rules, only the first one found is used.
>
>
> I guess that's a little confusing, since "equally applicable" isn't
> defined anywhere.  But, it refers to the last sentence:
>
>
> > Note however, that a rule whose prerequisites actually exist or are
> > mentioned always takes priority over a rule with prerequisites that must
> > be made by chaining other implicit rules.
>
>
>
> Anyway, the short answer is that for basic pattern rules (not chained
> pattern rules) the first one appearing in the makefile is always used.