[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Possible bug with 3.81?
From: |
Paul D. Smith |
Subject: |
Re: Possible bug with 3.81? |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:25:50 -0400 |
On Saturday, 28 October, Eli Zaretskii (address@hidden) wrote:
> > 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?
If you unpack the example attached to the first post and annotate it a
little bit, you'll see that what actually happens is make chooses the
second pattern rule rather than the first one:
.c.o: ; @echo '.c -> .o'
lib%.a : %.def %.o ; @echo Rule: .def .o
lib%.a: %.def ; @echo Rule: .def
$ make -rR
Rule: .def
.c -> .o
$ make-3.80 -rR
.c -> .o
Rule: .def .o
I think 3.80 (and below) have this right, and 3.81 has this wrong.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <address@hidden> Find some GNU make tips at:
http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
- 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, 2006/10/28
- Re: Possible bug with 3.81?,
Paul D. Smith <=