> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:08:24 -0400 > Cc: "Chris Sutcliffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, make-w32@gnu.org > From: "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Friday, 27 October, Eli Zaretskii ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Paul, is this expected? It seems reasonable to me, but perhaps it > > should be mentioned in the manual. > > No, I think this is a bug. Make should choose the first pattern rule to > build lib%.a, because both patterns can be built.
I'm confused: I think Make did choose the first pattern rule. The problem was with the order of prerequisites in that rule. Am I missing something? _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list Make-w32@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
