On Tuesday, October 4, 2022, Mikhail Pomaznoy <mik...@mikpom.ru> wrote:
> Martin's snippet indeed recapitulates the behavior resulted in my initial > report. > > As for Dmitry's reply: I don't understand if *make* does what's expected > or not. > > > Works as documented. Even though I am not sure this particular case was envisioned. > > I believed that A.4 being a prereq of A.4.ind will always trigger the > latter being rebuilt if A.4 is newer. > It will, if A.4 is newer. In this case A.4 is not newer. A.4 is missing when make considers A.4.ind. > As a side note: I use make for running pipelines and add .SECONDARY > routinely because I don't want anything to be deleted as temporary file > > > Secondary without prerequisites is a bad idea. Regards, Dmitry > -Mikhail > On 10/5/22 09:58, Dmitry Goncharov wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 10:08 PM Martin Dorey<martin.do...@hitachivantara.com> > <martin.do...@hitachivantara.com> wrote: > > Isn't this slightly simplified example sufficient to demonstrate the same > behavior... > > A.4 is a preqreq to T.1 and also a prereq to A.4.ind. > A.4.ind is present and that's why make skips building secondary A.4 > and keeps A.4.ind intact, while walking through A.4.ind prereqs. > T.1 is missing and this causes make to build A.4 in order to build > T.1, after A.4.ind is done with. > > regards, Dmitry > >
