Hi again!
On 01/02/16 21:29, Luke Shumaker wrote:
Here is an "improved" makefile that I think demonstrates the situation
more clearly.
default: a.foo
%.foo: %.correct
@echo $@ from $<
%.foo: %.mislead
@echo $@ from $<
On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 06:56:19 -0500,
Steven Simpson wrote:
> > Besides changing names, I also moved the "correct" branch up, to
> > remove the possibility that it was choosing the "mislead" branch
> > simply because it was listed first, which is what make does if
> > everything else ties.
>
> I und
Hi Luke,
On 01/02/16 21:29, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> Having to keep track of the bar's, baz's, qu+x's didn't help either :)
Sorry; I realised after posting that it might be a burden.
> Here is an "improved" makefile that I think demonstrates the situation
> more clearly.
[Snip an improved makefil
Hi Steven,
I had to work through this several times to convince myself that this
wasn't a simple misunderstanding of trying to apply ≤3.81 pattern
rules in a post-3.82 world.
Having to keep track of the bar's, baz's, qu+x's didn't help either :)
Here is an "improved" makefile that I think demonst
Hi!
Did this slip under the radar?
Thanks!
On 09/12/15 17:25, Steven Simpson wrote:
Just noticed a change in behaviour between 3.81 and 4.1:
%.foo: %.bar
@echo from bar
%.foo: %.baz
@echo from baz
%.baz: %.qux
@echo from qux
%.bar: %.quux
@echo from quux
gwonk: a.bar
So
