We prefer inline posting to top-posting, on the mailing lists. On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 13:11 +0000, lukeallard...@gmail.com wrote: > It’s probably a very nice case, but having a prerequisite > like “-lfoo” that matches a “libfoo.a” target would be useful for > decoupling say one makefile with the rule “main.exe: -lfoo” and > another in subdir “foo” that has “libfoo.a: libfoo.a(foo/foo.o)”. The > only change needed to have make choose between building the lib and > searching for it would be whether to “include foo/Makefile” / add “-f > foo/Makefile” when invoking make.
The problem is, "-lfoo" is ambiguous. What if you wanted to build "libfoo.so", not "libfoo.a"? Or some other type of library? In order to have this work, as I mentioned before, make would have to treat this kind of like a pattern where it tries each of the different kinds of libraries in turn to see if there's some rule that can be used to build them. I think it's better to just always use "libfoo.a" as a prerequisite, if that's what you want. It's easy enough to use patsubst in the recipe to convert them to -l options, if you want: $(LINK.cc) -o $@ $(patsubst lib%.a,-l%,$^) _______________________________________________ Help-make mailing list Help-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
