Le 22 juil. 2012 à 09:50, Stefano Lattarini a écrit : > On 07/22/2012 09:18 AM, Akim Demaille wrote: >> >> Le 22 juil. 2012 à 08:57, Stefano Lattarini a écrit : >> >>> +# Two check are done here: >> >> checks >> > Fixed. > >>> +# - if we have two pattern rules from which the same file (or set of >> >> s/we have // (th shrtr, th btr :). >> > But this would make the sentence grammatically incorrect, no? Maybe > s/we have/there are/ instead?
the rules have to become the subject. If two patterns rules from the which the same file (of set of files) can be built, are both applicable, and ... >>> +# files) can be built, both are applicable, and both results in the >>> +# same target stem, then the first one wins. >>> +# - if we have two pattern rules from which the same file (or set of >> >> ditto. >> > Likewise :-) Similarly :P > >>> +# files) can be built, both are applicable, but the resulting target >>> +# stems are different, then the "most specific" one (i.e., that which >>> +# result in the shortest stem) is used. >>> +# We take advantage of such features at least in our 'parallel-tests' >>> +# support.
