I wonder if any body can change the following example a bit not to update b (or my.c) as the manual mentioned, my.c is an intermediate file:
> %.c: %.c.in > cp $< $@ > > %.o: %.c > cp $< $@ > > $ echo hello>my.c.in > $ make my.o ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10.4 Chains of Implicit Rules But if b is an intermediate file, then make can leave well enough alone. It won’t bother updating b, or the ultimate target, unless some prerequisite of b is newer than that target or there is some other reason to update that target. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > from Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]> >reply-to Eli Zaretskii > Note the last part: "or there is some other reason". In this case, > the reason is that my.c is needed to get to my.o. Because 'my.c' does not exist, there is always a reason to update it!! so when it won't be updated while it does not exist as the manual promised? > This is a frequently used English idiom. "Leave something alone" > means not to touch it in any way. In this case, it means Make will > not try to create B if it is an intermediate file that does not exist. but the manual is saying: "...then make can leave well enough alone." You mentioned that, leave something alone is an idiom in English but where is "something" here? > It won't update it. Again, "won't bother doing something" means > "won't do it". Why we do not use the simpler English sentence when 'won't bother updating' is equal to 'it won't update'? "bother updating is heavy for non English people" when a person is struggling to find out the logic. _______________________________________________ Help-make mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
