On 2009-08-19 16:28Z, Schuster, Peter wrote: > > %.a %.b %.c: %.source > process $< [...special cases:] > myfile1.a myfile1.b myfile1.c: myfile1.temporary > process myfile1.temporary > > myfile2.a myfile2.b myfile2.c: myfile2.temporary > process myfile2.temporary > > and so on for 14 special case files. > > However because they've set it up so that all these special case files > have a naming convention of <name>_snp.source, it looks like I can still > define a new pattern rule of > > %_snp.a %_snp.b %_snp.c: %_snp.temporary > process $< > > This works, but only if I define the special case rule before the > generic rule, so this seems like hackery to me. Is this "safe" in the > long run, or do I need to look for a better solution?
It's safe because the 'make' manual documents it: | The order in which pattern rules appear in the makefile is important | since this is the order in which they are considered. Of equally | applicable rules, only the first one found is used. Of course, you might like to add comments to your makefile warning maintainers not to rearrange pattern rules, if you see a risk there. _______________________________________________ Help-make mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
