On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
> On 7 January 2014 00:57:47 Patrick Palka wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Andreas Schwab
>> wrote:
>> > Patrick Palka writes:
>> >
>> >> From what I inferred from the make manual[0], $* is functionally
>> >> equivalent
On 7 January 2014 00:57:47 Patrick Palka wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Patrick Palka writes:
>
>> From what I inferred from the make manual[0], $* is functionally
>> equivalent to $(basename $@) in this case.
>
> Or $(base), I think.
>
> Andreas.
>
> --
> Andr
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Patrick Palka writes:
>
>> From what I inferred from the make manual[0], $* is functionally
>> equivalent to $(basename $@) in this case.
>
> Or $(base), I think.
>
> Andreas.
>
> --
> Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
> GPG Key fingerpr
Patrick Palka writes:
> From what I inferred from the make manual[0], $* is functionally
> equivalent to $(basename $@) in this case.
Or $(base), I think.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for so
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following tiny patch allows GCC to be built with the
> "--no-builtin-rules" GNU make flag. It replaces two usages of the
> automatic variable $* within the body of an explicit rule. Using $*
> inside the body of an explicit rule
Hi,
The following tiny patch allows GCC to be built with the
"--no-builtin-rules" GNU make flag. It replaces two usages of the
automatic variable $* within the body of an explicit rule. Using $*
inside the body of an explicit rule should be avoided[0] and, as in
this scenario, may break an other
