[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Possible bug with 3.81?
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Possible bug with 3.81? |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Oct 2006 13:49:23 +0200 |
> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:08:24 -0400
> Cc: "Chris Sutcliffe" <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> From: "Paul D. Smith" <address@hidden>
>
> On Friday, 27 October, Eli Zaretskii (address@hidden) wrote:
>
> > Paul, is this expected? It seems reasonable to me, but perhaps it
> > should be mentioned in the manual.
>
> No, I think this is a bug. Make should choose the first pattern rule to
> build lib%.a, because both patterns can be built.
I'm confused: I think Make did choose the first pattern rule. The
problem was with the order of prerequisites in that rule. Am I
missing something?
- Possible bug with 3.81?, Chris Sutcliffe, 2006/10/25
- Re: Possible bug with 3.81?, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/10/25
- Re: Possible bug with 3.81?, Earnie Boyd, 2006/10/26
- Re: Possible bug with 3.81?, Chris Sutcliffe, 2006/10/26
- Re: Possible bug with 3.81?, Chris Sutcliffe, 2006/10/26
- Re: Possible bug with 3.81?, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/10/27
- Re: Possible bug with 3.81?, Paul D. Smith, 2006/10/28
- Re: Possible bug with 3.81?,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Possible bug with 3.81?, Paul D. Smith, 2006/10/28