Re: bug#7824: Automatic chaining of make suffix rules

2012-07-23 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 07/23/2012 02:49 PM, Юрий Пухальский wrote: > > [SNIP] > >>> >>> Alas! My thing must be highly portable. I'm not sure who's guilty in >>> this case, maybe HP, >>> >> Well, their make is busted in another, more relevant way: >> >>

Re: bug#7824: Automatic chaining of make suffix rules

2012-07-23 Thread Юрий Пухальский
>>> The *BSD makes don't >>> suffer from it either. As for AIX, IRIX and OSF1/Tru64, I don't have >>> access to those systems, so I can't test how their make implementations >>> behave. >> >> I have aix 5.3 and aix 6.1 here. So if you tell me how it's best to >> check… >> > You can use this Makefi

Re: Automatic chaining of make suffix rules (was: Re: bug#7824: won't fix)

2012-07-23 Thread Юрий Пухальский
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > [Re-adding the list, as this discussion is worth being registered in > the archives IMHO] > Ok. The situation is that both of the approaches (.pc.c rule and .pc.lo rule) have problems entailed. >>> * .pc.lo rule doesn't c

Automatic chaining of make suffix rules (was: Re: bug#7824: won't fix)

2012-07-23 Thread Stefano Lattarini
[Re-adding the list, as this discussion is worth being registered in the archives IMHO] On 07/23/2012 02:18 PM, Юрий Пухальский wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Stefano Lattarini > wrote: >> On 07/23/2012 11:42 AM, Юрий Пухальский wrote: >>> I understand that it's about a year since last