Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 18:43:13 +0000
From: Austin Group Bug Tracker <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
| A NOTE has been added to this issue.
I am replying on the list, rather than via another note, as this
reply adds nothing of substance to the actual issue.
| Robert, your test does not check wether gmake overwrites a rule.
Yes, I misinterpreted what you were trying to say, Paul Smith's subsequent
note (5156) made that obvious.
| This is why I do not like to permit this way of "modifying" pattern
| rules for the POSIX standard. If we ever add this feature to POSIX,
| I would like to see the requirement to first remove an existing rule
| by specifying a rule with the same pattern, but with no command
| and then to add a new one with a command.
I'm not sure it really makes a difference - but for now, it seems clear
that duplicate rules should simply result in unspecified behaviour.
| The fact that bmake prints a warning if you try to "overwrite" a rule
| is another hint that my proposal to first require an explicit removal
| with the same pattern and no command before permitting to redefine a
| rule is the better way for a potential future.
I don't work on make (as you know) but I suspect that if we ever implemented
a method of replacing existing rules, that warning would go away.
As it is now, whether the replacement has code attached, or not, makes
no difference, so your proposal would generate the warning if given to
an unmodified bmake just the same as the gmake method.
kre
