Follow-up Comment #8, bug #18139 (project make):
Hm. Boris, is that the way it's always worked or is it something we changed
recently? According to the docs as far as I can tell there's no such
distinction between rules that require intermediates and those that don't.
In fact, it seems pretty clear that this distinction is not intended; the
docs on chaining say:
> There are some special implicit rules to optimize certain cases that
> would otherwise be handled by rule chains. For example, making `foo'
> from `foo.c' could be handled by compiling and linking with separate
> chained rules, using `foo.o' as an intermediate file. But what
> actually happens is that a special rule for this case does the
> compilation and linking with a single `cc' command. The optimized rule
> is used in preference to the step-by-step chain because it comes
> earlier in the ordering of rules.
The last sentence would not be necessary if the two passes model were in
place, since the "no intermediates" path would be chosen regardless of which
order it appeared in.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?18139>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
