Re: pattern rules with absolute paths and chaining (Was: implicit rules with absolute paths and chaining (Was: targets starting with '/'))

[Noel Yap]

Oops, sorry.  Clearly I skipped over the details of the patch.

Noel

Paul D. Smith wrote:

> %% Noel Yap <address@hidden> writes:
>
>   ny> I haven't tried the patch out yet, but the explanation doesn't
>   ny> seem to explain why replacing the absolute paths with relative
>   ny> paths fixes the problem.
>
> I think the comment pretty clearly addresses exactly this:
>
>   >> -              /* The name is absolute and the directory does not exist.
>   >> -                 This rule can never possibly match, since this dependency
>   >> -                 can never possibly exist.  So just remove the rule from
>   >> -                 the list.  */
>
> ???