Paul Smith wrote: > On Sat, 2014-09-06 at 19:38 +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote: > > I know that specific rules take precendence over pattern rules (e.g. > > if I had a rule "foobar:;", I wouldn't expect the echo to run), as > > the documentation says: "The rules you write take precedence over > > those that are built in." But here foobar has no specific rule, just > > appears as a pseudo-prerequisite of ".PHONY". > > > > Apparently this is enough to prevent make from using the pattern > > rule as well, but I couldn't find this mentioned in the > > documentation, so I wonder whether it's meant to be so or a bug? > > The manual chapter on phony targets sez: > > Since it knows that phony targets do not name actual files that > could be remade from other files, `make' skips the implicit rule > search for phony targets (*note Implicit Rules::). This is why > declaring a target phony is good for performance, even if you > are not worried about the actual file existing.
Well, "foobar" (in my example) is not an actual *file*, but yet it can be "remade" just like any other phony target. Also, the rule in question is not an implicit one (which I understand to mean built-in rules), but one I gave explictly. So when I read this paragraph I didn't think it applied. But I gather from your reaction that the behaviour of make is as intended, so I think the documentation could be made clearer here. I'd omit the "Since ..." part as I don't think it really applies (see above) and s/implicit/pattern/, so e.g. just: Phone targets are not eligible for pattern rules (implicit or explicit). This is why declaring a target phony is good for performance, even if you are not worried about the actual file existing. _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
