%% Albert Ting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: at> We've encountered an interesting dependency problem. Not sure if at> this is a bug or feature.
at> $ /bin/rm -rf test at> $ mkdir -p test/dir1 at> $ touch test/dir1/file1 at> $ make at> Makefile:13: test/file3: No such file or directory at> make: *** No rule to make target `test/dir2/file2', needed by `foo'. Stop. at> It sounds like "make" gets confused when a file is being used for both an at> implicit rule, include file, and target dependency. It should recognize at> the first implicit rule doesn't match, and reference the second implicit at> rule. This does indeed look to me like a bug. However, determining exactly what's wrong looks like it will take some work, so I'll have to find time for this. I don't see the problem immediately. It definitely does work for "normal" patterns, so I don't know why these fail. at> However, if we change the BAR definition to hold the absolute at> path, we do get the correct behavior. That's interesting, because it failed both ways for me. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
