Re: bug with order-only prerequisites & implicit rules implementation ?

2015-01-10 Thread Philip Guenther
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Jason Vas Dias wrote: > Please could anyone explain the behaviour of this test makefile (attached) : > > > TMP:=/tmp > > %.ext: > touch $@ > > .PHONY: *.oop > %.oop: > @echo 'A phony order-only prequisite of /tmp/a.t'; > > #$(TMP)/%.t: | %.oop > >

bug with order-only prerequisites & implicit rules implementation ?

2015-01-10 Thread Jason Vas Dias
Greetings - Please could anyone explain the behaviour of this test makefile (attached) : TMP:=/tmp %.ext: touch $@ .PHONY: *.oop %.oop: @echo 'A phony order-only prequisite of /tmp/a.t'; #$(TMP)/%.t: | %.oop $(TMP)/%.t:$(TMP)/%.ext | %.oop @echo Specific Rule %.t:%.e

bug with order-only prerequisites & implicit rules implementation ?

2015-01-10 Thread Jason Vas Dias
Greetings - Please could anyone explain the behaviour of this test makefile (attached) : TMP:=/tmp %.ext: touch $@ .PHONY: *.oop %.oop: @echo 'A phony order-only prequisite of /tmp/a.t'; #$(TMP)/%.t: | %.oop $(TMP)/%.t:$(TMP)/%.ext | %.oop @echo Specific Rule %.t:%.e