Follow-up Comment #5, bug #66030 (group make): You are talking about what make knows and what, of the things it knows, it should print in this situation. I don't disagree with any of that.
I'm talking about what make _actually does today_. There can be no
disagreement about that, since it does what it does and I know what it does
and what it was intended to do when the code was written :). It is not
printing the name of the target that the recipe will create. It is printing
the name of the target that make discovered was out of date, that caused it to
decide to run the recipe. That's true no matter what kind of rule is being
invoked: explicit rule, pattern rule with a single target pattern, pattern
rule with multiple target patterns, or grouped target explicit rule (in newer
versions).
You are completely correct that make does know more than that, and it could
print more information than that. It _could_ print the name(s) of the
target(s) that it expects the recipe to create. But, that's not what it does
currently, and what it does currently is not really a bug in the sense that
it's doing exactly what it what was intended to do when the code was written.
I do agree that it's a legitimate enhancement that it should print more
details.
That's all I'm trying to say.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66030>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
