"Paul D. Smith" wrote:
>>
The rationale... behind the way "%.x %.y:" works?
It's _extremely_ handy. In fact, I consider it a failing of GNU make
that there's no way to express this same concept for explicit,
non-pattern rules. One should be added.
<<
I agree. I've been running into this a lot r
%% James Amundson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ja> "Paul D. Smith" wrote:
>> If you'd found the right part of the GNU make manual, you could be
>> assured that it's a feature :).
ja> Thank you. I read the relevant part of the manual again. I see
ja> this behavior is well documented. I
"Paul D. Smith" wrote:
> If you'd found the right part of the GNU make manual, you could be
> assured that it's a feature :).
Thank you. I read the relevant part of the manual again. I see this
behavior is well documented. I actually had read the previous two
paragraphs before sending in this re
%% James Amundson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ja> I believe I have found a bug in GNU make.
I don't think this is a bug.
ja> It is subtle enough that I initially thought it was a feature; I
ja> am now convinced it is a bug.
If you'd found the right part of the GNU make manual, you could
Hi,
I believe I have found a bug in GNU make. It is subtle enough that I
initially thought it was a feature; I am now convinced it is a bug.
Consider the following GNUmakefile:
-
all: x.1 x.2 y.1 y.2
ifdef method1
x.%:
@echo $@
y.%:
@echo
