Please check the following section of the make manual: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Secondary Expansion of Explicit Rules tively. In the third they will have values foo.1, foo.1 bar.1 foo.2 bar.2, and foo.1 bar.1 foo.2 bar.2 respectively. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I used the attached make manual, GNU make Version 3.81, April 2006, ISBN 1-882114-83-5, This is Edition 0.70, last updated 1 April 2006, of The GNU Make Manual, for GNU make version 3.81.
I had a consult with Paul Smith and he verified me: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Paul Smith <p...@mad-scientist.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 11:28 +0430, ali hagigat wrote: >> Secondary Expansion of Explicit Rules >> .SECONDEXPANSION: >> foo: foo.1 bar.1 $$< $$^ $$+ # line #1 >> foo: foo.2 bar.2 $$< $$^ $$+ # line #2 >> foo: foo.3 bar.3 $$< $$^ $$+ # line #3 >> In the first prerequisite list, all three variables ($$<, $$^, and $$+) >> expand to the empty >> string. In the second, they will have values foo.1, foo.1 bar.1, and >> foo.1 bar.1 respec- >> tively. In the third they will have values foo.1, foo.1 bar.1 foo.2 >> bar.2, and foo.1 >> bar.1 foo.2 bar.2 respectively. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> In page 21 of the make manual, there is an example of secondary >> expansion. The written result of the third $$+ seems wrong. It should >> be: >> foo.1 bar.1 foo.2 bar.2 foo.1 foo.1 bar.1 foo.1 bar.1 >> Please correct me if I am wrong. > > I'm not sure what you're looking at; maybe an older version of the > manual where this is incorrect? But the current version of the manual > says: > http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Secondary-Expansion.html#index-explicit-rules_002c-secondary-expansion-of-118 > > In the first prerequisite list, all three variables ($$<, $$^, > and $$+) expand to the empty string. In the second, they will > have values foo.1, foo.1 bar.1, and foo.1 bar.1 respectively. In > the third they will have values foo.1, foo.1 bar.1 foo.2 bar.2, > and foo.1 bar.1 foo.2 bar.2 foo.1 foo.1 bar.1 foo.1 bar.1 > respectively. > > which I believe is correct. > > _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
