On 2/5/08, Derek Clegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 5, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Mike Shal wrote: > > > Pattern rules are treated a little differently. Specifically, see > > section 10.5.1 "Introduction to Pattern Rules" in the make info pages: > > > > The order in which pattern rules appear in the makefile is important > > since this is the order in which they are considered. Of equally > > applicable rules, only the first one found is used. > > > > In your example, only the first pattern rule will apply, and the foo.h > > dependency will be ignored. > > I'm not sure this is correct. If it were, as you point out: > > > You could move foo.h to the line above and have a single pattern > > rule to get your expected behavior in this case. > > I tried this, and the behavior is unchanged. Unless there's a bug, > this implies that I have a single pattern rule: > dir/%.c: %.c | dir ; cp $< $@ > > The rule > dir/%.c: foo.h > > does not appear to be treated as a pattern rule. (Otherwise, putting > it first would have changed the behavior.) >
Err, sorry I wasn't clear. I meant putting foo.h in the line above, not just swapping the two lines: start: dir/a.c dir/%.c: %.c foo.h | dir ; cp $< $@ dir: ; mkdir $@ a.c foo.h: ; touch $@ $ make touch a.c touch foo.h mkdir dir cp a.c dir/a.c I suspect just swapping the lines doesn't do what you would think because the pattern rule 'dir/%.c: foo.h' doesn't have any commands associated with it (such as the other rule does). I tried swapping the two lines and adding a command to the foo.h rule, and only that rule was executed. Either way, Paul's advice about making the .o depend on the .h is probably the road you should pursue - I was just trying to get your script to generate your expected output :) -Mike _______________________________________________ Help-make mailing list Help-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
