On Thu Apr 4 16:17:58 2013, psm...@gnu.org (Paul Smith) wrote: > This is expected behavior. A rule like: > > foo bar: > @echo $@ > > is exactly the same thing, to make, as writing: > > foo: > @echo $@ > bar: > @echo $@ > > It's just a shorthand for writing a lot of identical rules; it does NOT > mean that a single invocation if the rule will generate all three > targets, which is what you are expecting.
Incidentally: other workflow/inference languages can express this distinction perfectly and still allow the resulting specifications to be analyzed for proper termination (e.g. safe Petri nets, Datalog); I'd love to know of an alternative to make that is based on such a language, but it seems too much to ask for make to be extended in this way. -- Reinier _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
