From: Henning Makholm (tkkrxymd@powerware.com)
Date: Mon Jun 24 2002 - 15:13:10 EEST
Scripsit "Adam J. Richter" <ridad.ureqencd@golf.vc>
> >I'm not sure this is really a bug either. It is a Good Thing that make
> >tries to normalize the names of targets and dependencies internally,
> >lest the build may be incomplete or redundant if make does not realize
> >that foo.bar and ./foo.bar is the same file. It is quite reasonable
> >for $< to unfold to the *canonical* name of the file in question, I
> >think.
> That just makes the behavior of make less predictable.
> Whatever make does with the file names internally is its own business.
> Rewriting the file names passed to commands unnecessarily is
> potentially a big problem.
It is not rewriting file names. It is just substituting the name of
the dependency for the $< variable, just as documented.
> >If one absolutely wants the command to use the exact form of the
> >dependency that's used in the dependency list, it's easy to simply
> >reproduce that form, replacing the % by $*
> Sorry, I do not understand what you mean.
It wasn't right anyway. I remembered the semantics of $* when the file
name contains slashes wrong.
--
Henning Makholm "They are trying to prove a hypothesis,
they are down here gathering data every season,
they're publishing results in peer-reviewed journals.
They're wrong, I think, but they are still scientists."
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hams" in
the body of a message to vkerfcpo.glvqw@mail.dy.fi
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jun 24 2002 - 15:13:36 EEST