Re: Checking application of dependencies from make rules without recipes

[SF Markus Elfring]

> Your claim was that either explicit rules should come before implicit rules
> or vice versa.

You are more free with your choices for placement of explicit rules in make 
scripts
(because you can not and will therefore not cancel them).

You should be careful then which of your explicit rules will be configured
for the use as the default make rule.


>>>> This distinction has got important consequences on how the different
>>>> make rule types can and should be ordered relative to each other.
> 
> I still find that to be one of your clearer sentences, even if it left us 
> wondering
> what these important consequences are.

Bigger freedom for positioning of explicit make rules.
Have you got any preferences there?


> Still, if all you were saying was that implicit rule ordering can be 
> important,
> then I think we can happily close this thread.

The clarification for the mentioned distinction might be finished in principle
for now. But I guess that the discussion will be continued around the handling
of “optional” input files (and their effect on the usage of static pattern rules
and suffix rules).

Regards,
Markus