Secondary expansion and pattern rules

2019-02-08 Thread Mike Haboustak
I've been trying to make use of secondary expansion and I ran into some confusion that I couldn't reconcile with manual. Specifically, The value of the automatic variable $< is not what I'd expect during the second expansion of an implicit rule prerequisite. In the makefile below, foo.o is built v

Re: Secondary expansion and pattern rules

2019-02-11 Thread Mike Haboustak
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:07:08PM -0500, Paul Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 14:32 -0500, Mike Haboustak wrote: > > It seems that the value of $< is getting defaulted for implicit rules > > during second expansion. However, the value of $< is correct in the > >

Re: suppressing $ resolution in variable value

2021-09-02 Thread Mike Haboustak
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 9:51 AM Brian J. Murrell wrote: > How can I get make to not try to resolve the $ in the value as it seems > to be doing for all of the echos in the debug target: The value built-in function will provide the value of a variable without expanding it. See Section 8.8 of the Gn

Re: Confusion around empty recipe

2024-06-03 Thread Mike Haboustak
On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 4:21 PM Jeenu Viswambharan wrote: > > There's little point in my repeating the question here. As suggested > by an answer to the post, the issue I reported is solved if I add a > semicolon to a rule. > > But I further wanted to understand _why_ the solution works. Somehow, >