[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Order of static pattern rules is significant while IMHO it should no
From: |
Martin Dorey |
Subject: |
Re: Order of static pattern rules is significant while IMHO it should not be |
Date: |
Thu, 5 Jun 2025 22:25:30 +0000 |
> I think static pattern rules without recipes are rare (at least I've
> never seen or used one)
I could quickly lay my hands on what looks like a handful:
./subrules.make:384:$(SOFTWARE)$(PROJPATH)/%: %;
./subrules.make:392:$(FLEX_GEN_CPP): %.gen.cpp: generated/regenerated.%
./subrules.make:393:$(FLEX_GEN_H): %.gen.h: generated/regenerated.%
./subrules.make:530:clean clobber: %: %.generated
./trules.make:642:$(ORPHAN_OBJS): $(TARGET_DIR)/%.o: remove_orphans.%
The first one looks to be trying to persuade Make about the equivalence of a
certain sort of relative path and an absolute one. The rest seem to be more
directly code to tell Make about side-effects - build this first and then maybe
what you wanted will have magically appeared, or disappeared.