Re: GNU make troubleshooting

On Tue, 2023-08-29 at 09:44 -0400, David Boyce wrote: > - I find it interesting that there's no mention of -n which seems > like a bog-standard, POSIX-compliant, debugging method. It's also > another way of getting around @. Simplistic but worth mentioning > IMHO. I rarely use -n, personally. Als

Re: GNU make troubleshooting

A few thoughts, mostly on the shell/recipe end of things: - I find it interesting that there's no mention of -n which seems like a bog-standard, POSIX-compliant, debugging method. It's also another way of getting around @. Simplistic but worth mentioning IMHO. - I wonder why there's so much empha

Re: Static pattern rules with more than one '%'

Hi Paul, On 2023-08-29 14:45, Paul Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2023-08-29 at 11:32 +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: >> Am I missing something?  Is something like that allowed anyhow? > > Multiple "%" are allowed, in that they won't throw an error. But, only > the first "%" is replaced. The second (an

Re: Static pattern rules with more than one '%'

On Tue, 2023-08-29 at 11:32 +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Am I missing something?  Is something like that allowed anyhow? Multiple "%" are allowed, in that they won't throw an error. But, only the first "%" is replaced. The second (and subsequent) "%" are just normal characters, not pattern

Static pattern rules with more than one '%'

Hi! The documentation of static pattern rules says that each pattern *normally* contains the character '%' just once. That wording seems to allow the case of several of those. I experimented to see if it is really supported,