> "PG" == Philip Guenther writes:
PG> Nope, wrong. If you want make to guarantee that, you must express it
PG> as a dependency between C and B.
OK thanks.
___
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 4:24 PM, wrote:
>> "PS" == Paul Smith writes:
>>> A:B C;D
>>> A:|B C;D
>
> PS> No. C will never be run first, before B. If you enable parallel builds
> PS> then B and C might be run at the same time (but B will still be started
> PS> first, then C).
Paul, as you kno
> "PS" == Paul Smith writes:
>> A:B C;D
>> A:|B C;D
PS> No. C will never be run first, before B. If you enable parallel builds
PS> then B and C might be run at the same time (but B will still be started
PS> first, then C).
I recall someone said that there was no guarantee of order even in
On Sun, 2012-07-08 at 06:04 +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> Can you please add at least _one_ example to
> (info "(make) Prerequisite Types")
> also consider retitling it "Order-only Prerequisites" or adding a sub-section.
>
> Does it mean the only difference between
> A:B C;D
> A:|B C;D
> is
%% Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> Sometimes features are advanced enough that providing a simple
Paul> example
dj> Well still, a few-liner showing how
dj> a: b|c
dj> differs from
dj> a: b c
dj> wouldn't hurt.
True.
dj> Occasionally, however, you have a situation
Paul> Sometimes features are advanced enough that providing a simple example
Well still, a few-liner showing how
a: b|c
differs from
a: b c
wouldn't hurt.
Paul> under a public license.
I meant you guys must be reading an O'Reilly book or hung out in Bell
Labs or something. There's no way I coul
%% Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
dj> TARGETS : NORMAL-PREREQUISITES | ORDER-ONLY-PREREQUISITES
dj> Well, you got me there. Without examples, we have trouble grasping
dj> how to utilize what this Info page is talking about.
Sometimes features are advanced enough that providi
