Follow-up Comment #9, bug #61226 (project make):
For now I decided to put back the original behavior (revert the main.c
changes). I will leave this issue open to think about how to best introduce a
backward-incompatible change that might help in this situation.
I really don't like the idea of creating a distinction between an "empty"
recipe and a "non-empty" recipe. Just to point out the description in "Rules
without Recipes or Prerequisites" is talking about *NO* recipe vs. some
recipe, not empty recipe vs non-empty recipe. That is, the difference between
*FORCE:* and *FORCE:;*. However as I mentioned before it's not actually
required that you don't have a recipe here: any recipe (or no recipe) that
doesn't update the target will serve just as well. This text is not wrong,
although it could be argued that it's incomplete by not describing all the
other ways a target might be considered up to date in addition to a missing
recipe.
The text in "Including Other Makefiles" was confusing so I modified it to say
this:
> Only after it has failed to find a rule to remake the makefile, or it found
a rule but the recipe failed, will @code{make} diagnose the missing makefile
as a fatal error.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61226>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
