Hi/2. Paul Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2023-01-16 at 22:14 +0900, KO Myung-Hun wrote: >>> 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. > > GNU Make doesn't try to resolve all the targets including all implicit > targets first, then after they're all done try to build them. > > Instead, it tries to build every target as it is needed. So if you try > to build "foo.exe" first and it finds an implicit target "%.exe" then > you try to build "foo" second, it will see that the target "foo.exe" > already exists. > > But if you try to build "foo" first before "foo.exe", then there will > be no target "foo.exe" yet because you haven't tried to build it, and > it won't be found. Note here the "foo.exe" has to be intermediate of > course, otherwise it will be known to make even using an implicit rule.
What I meant is checking the existence of a rule for a target not a real file built for a target. -- 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/
