For the sake of reliability I wouldn't use pure `$<` anywhere. And if the
answer to your question "Which one, listed in another rule, becomes $:
>
>
> On 9/27/23 17:01, Mark Piffer wrote:
> > Is there a case (common or rare) where the answer to this question has
> real world consequences?
>
> Yes,
On Mon, 2023-10-02 at 09:06 +0200, Mark Piffer wrote:
> For the sake of reliability I wouldn't use pure `$<` anywhere.
I'm not sure what you mean by "reliability" (I'm not aware of any
change to the behavior of $< in the 30+ year history of GNU make) and I
don't know what you mean by "pure $<"; wh
On Mon, 2023-10-02 at 09:08 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> The behavior is straightforward: when make parses a rule _without_ a
> recipe, it will append new prerequisites to the END of its targets'
> list of prerequisites.
>
> When make parses an explicit rule that _has_ a recipe, then those
> prerequ
On Mon, 2023-10-02 at 11:48 -0700, Bahman Movaqar wrote:
> my-target : foo
> my-target :
> @echo 'my-target: $$(<) is $(<)'
This is an unusual way to construct this rule. Normally it would be:
my-target : foo
@echo 'my-target: $$< is $<'
whereupon the value of $< is reliab
On Mon, 2023-10-02 at 14:56 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-10-02 at 11:48 -0700, Bahman Movaqar wrote:
> > my-target : foo
> > my-target :
> > @echo 'my-target: $$(<) is $(<)'
>
> This is an unusual way to construct this rule. Normally it would be:
>
> my-target : foo
>
On Mon, 2023-10-02 at 12:00 -0700, Bahman Movaqar wrote:
> Thanks for the hint re style. Finding good examples of writing easy-
> to-read make files is no easy feat. That's why I do have these
> inaccuracies in my personal style.
I should say that the original method you posted is unusual IF YOU
On Mon, 2023-10-02 at 15:14 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> You should put the "important" prerequisite, if one exists, on the rule
> containing the recipe. If that rule doesn't list any prerequisites,
> you are effectively saying that none of the prerequisites is special
> and they are all interchange
