On Thu, 2021-09-02 at 16:28 +0000, Austin Group Bug Tracker wrote: > On page 2975, insert before line > 98708:<blockquote><b>.NOTPARALLEL</b><blockquote>The application > shall ensure that this special target is specified without > prerequisites or commands.
What exactly is required by an implementation to meet this "shall ensure" statement? Does this mean make implementations must generate a fatal error of some kind if there are prerequisites or commands to .NOTPARALLEL (and .POSIX: target is specified)? It's quite simple to imagine adding a capability that, for example, allows you to specify prerequisites of .NOTPARALLEL and have it do useful things. Requiring a fatal error if someone adds .POSIX: seems overly strict. > On page 2975, insert before line > 98742:<blockquote><b>.WAIT</b><blockquote>The application shall > ensure that this special target, if specified as a target, is > specified without prerequisites or commands. When <b>.WAIT<b> appears > as a target, it shall have no effect. When <b>.WAIT</b> appears in a > target rule as a prerequisite, it shall not itself be treated as a > prerequisite; however, <i>make</i> shall not recursively process the > prerequisites to the right of the <b>.WAIT</b> until the > prerequisites to the left of it have been brought up-to-date. > Implementations may also enforce the same ordering between the > affected prerequisites while processing other target rules that > have some or all of the same affected > prerequisites.</blockquote></blockquote> For my clarification, what is the behavior for a rule like this: target: .WAIT prereq ; : Am I right in assuming that the above text means that this is a no-op and identical in behavior to: target: prereq ; : because there are no "prerequisites to the left of the .WAIT"? Similarly, I assume that this: target: prereq .WAIT ; : is also a no-op since there are no "prerequisites to the right of the .WAIT"...?
