Hi/2. Paul Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2023-01-16 at 00:15 +0900, KO Myung-Hun wrote: >> Then, this patch is acceptable? Or MSYS is a special case ? > > I don't think this patch is a good idea. I said in my initial email: > >> I don't think I like this change. I understand its usefulness but in >> general make never tries to manipulate the target names like this. > > And I haven't changed my mind. > > Also I asked: > >> What do you do in situations where there are targets for BOTH "foo" >> and "foo.exe" in the makefile? Then when you want to build "foo" it >> may decide that it's up to date, because it sees the "foo.exe" file >> instead. > > and you replied: > >> In this case, Make should not find "foo.exe" for "foo" target. > > But this does not seem like an easy thing to accomplish, at all. What > if there is a "%.exe" pattern rule, not an explicit rule for "foo.exe"?
I think, it's possible to do so by finding a target as GNU Make finds dependencies. > It seems like this behavior would be very confusing for users, where > sometimes you would get one behavior and sometimes another, based on > what other rules did or didn't exist. > > The real problem here is that GCC is behaving in an unusual way, where > you ask it to generate an output file with one name and instead it > generates an output file with a different name. My opinion is that > this is a problem or an issue for GCC, and that we should not attempt > to paper over that issue by making changes in GNU Make. Ok, and thanks for your explanation! -- KO Myung-Hun Using Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.7.2 Under OS/2 Warp 4 for Korean with FixPak #15 In VirtualBox v6.1.40 on Intel Core i7-3615QM 2.30GHz with 12GB RAM Korean OS/2 User Community : http://www.os2.kr/
