[bug #18139] make chooses wrong pattern rule

2009-06-09 Thread Paul D. Smith
Update of bug #18139 (project make): Status:None => Duplicate Open/Closed:Open => Closed ___ Follow-up Comment #10: I believe this is a

[bug #18139] make chooses wrong pattern rule

2006-10-31 Thread Boris Kolpackov
Follow-up Comment #9, bug #18139 (project make): I just checked and this code is in 3.80. I could not find any motivation of doing things this way in the comments. ___ Reply to this item at: __

[bug #18139] make chooses wrong pattern rule

2006-10-30 Thread Paul D. Smith
Follow-up Comment #8, bug #18139 (project make): Hm. Boris, is that the way it's always worked or is it something we changed recently? According to the docs as far as I can tell there's no such distinction between rules that require intermediates and those that don't. In fact, it seems pretty

[bug #18139] make chooses wrong pattern rule

2006-10-30 Thread anonymous
Follow-up Comment #7, bug #18139 (project make): I think the confusion comes from that the top-goal in the makefile is not what it actually should be, that is just: all: $(LIBS) Normally you would expect this to work but by the implications that Boris mentionned it doesn't. Tnen, there are

[bug #18139] make chooses wrong pattern rule

2006-10-30 Thread Boris Kolpackov
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #18139 (project make): When GNU make is trying to match a target to an implicit rule it does it in two passes (implicit.c:432): first without intermediate prerequisites and then with them. If %.o results in an interemdiate then, on the first pass, the first rule will be

[bug #18139] make chooses wrong pattern rule

2006-10-30 Thread Paul D. Smith
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #18139 (project make): Boris, I don't see why %.o being intermediate makes a difference. Make can and does chain implicit rules. I re-read the section on chaining and I don't see anything that would contradict the basic premise of chaining, which is that the length of

[bug #18139] make chooses wrong pattern rule

2006-10-29 Thread Boris Kolpackov
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #18139 (project make): I haven't checked the archive but from the rules above it seem that this is the valid behavior if %.o in the first rule would trigger build of an intermediate target. Also note that there were tons of bugs fixed in 3.81 compared to 3.80. Automatic

[bug #18139] make chooses wrong pattern rule

2006-10-29 Thread Chris Sutcliffe
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #18139 (project make): I have since been informed, as you pointed out, that this bug does indeed affect Linux based builds of make as well. ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #18139] make chooses wrong pattern rule

2006-10-28 Thread Paul D. Smith
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #18139 (project make): It's not true that this is a Windows-only thing. I reproduced it on my Linux system. ___ Reply to this item at: ___

[bug #18139] make chooses wrong pattern rule

2006-10-28 Thread Chris Sutcliffe
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #18139 (project make): I've been told that the correct behaviour is used in the GNU/Linux version of Make 3.81 (i.e. the first rule is used), so this may be a windows only issue. ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #18139] make chooses wrong pattern rule

2006-10-28 Thread Chris Sutcliffe
URL: Summary: make chooses wrong pattern rule Project: make Submitted by: ironhead Submitted on: Sunday 10/29/2006 at 00:49 Severity: 3 - Normal Item Group: Bug