https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2587
--- Comment #7 from parakleta at gmail dot com --- I've just realised that changing the order of rules may not work. We want to have '.m -> .c -> .o' as the sequence without triggering '.m -> .o', and by setting '.c' before '.m' we're saying if '.c -> .o' is possible then use that, but I suspect if the '.c' file is missing or out of date the it will try the '.m -> .o' rule before trying to build the intermediate. I think this means that either the '.c' files need to be listed as explicit dependencies of the '.o' files in the case that a '.m' file exists (so bypassing the pattern and forcing the explicit sequence '.m -> .c => .o') or else disabling the rules as per my first suggestion. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
