help-make
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: directory search fails!


From: ali hagigat
Subject: Re: directory search fails!
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:48:00 +0330

Philip, thank you to respond. Lets go through the details of the
manual step by step:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.4.3 How Directory Searches are Performed
The algorithm make uses to decide whether to keep or abandon a path
found via directory search is as follows:
1. If a target file does not exist at the path specified in the
makefile, directory search is performed.
2. If the directory search is successful, that path is kept and this
file is tentatively stored as the target.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"this file is tentatively stored as the target"!!

What does it mean? Target file will be stored on hard disk? Where?
tentatively, what does it mean? What does non-tentatively mean?


On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Philip Guenther <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:56 PM, ali hagigat <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Please write an example to explain the logic behind directory search..
>
> Examples cannot explain, they can only demonstrate a subset of the
> logic.  There are an infinite number of negative cases, where a given
> behavior does *not* apply; there's no way for an example to show all
> of the infinite negative cases!
>
> Indeed, your own example demonstrates one of the negative case for
> directory search, where the vpath logic does *not* apply.  How can we
> provide 'an' example to illustrate all the infinite cases where the
> vpath logic doesn't apply?
>
> I tell you that your example is behaving correctly, operating as the
> info pages specify it should.  Why should the vpath for one target
> (preq1) apply to a different target (di2/preq2)?  You apparently think
> that it should, but because you don't say *WHY* you believe that, I
> cannot identify the bad step in your path to that incorrect
> conclusion.
>
>
>
> Philip Guenther
>



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]