Re: [bug #51311] Checking search retries for implicit make rules

2017-07-03 Thread SF Markus Elfring
> At the risk of stating the obvious, note that there is a trivial > work-around for this - there is nothing special about dot in patterns, > so you could merge the dot into what % matches to make it non-empty: It might be acceptable to give up a character from either end of the prefix (or suffix)

Re: [bug #51311] Checking search retries for implicit make rules

2017-07-03 Thread Edward Welbourne
Mike Gran (25 June 2017 22:54) > The '%' (the stem) in a pattern rule doesn't, if I recall correctly, > match a null string. It needs to match at least a single character, > so building MOTD.log won't work. At the risk of stating the obvious, note that there is a trivial work-around for this - th

[bug #51311] Checking search retries for implicit make rules

2017-07-02 Thread Markus Elfring
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #51311 (project make): > In fact there can be zero, one, or as many prerequisites containing the pattern character as you like. Essentially if the target contains a pattern character then it's a pattern rule: Can examples in the manual cause the impression that there is

[bug #51311] Checking search retries for implicit make rules

2017-07-02 Thread Paul D. Smith
Update of bug #51311 (project make): Status:None => Duplicate Open/Closed:Open => Closed ___ Follow-up Comment #3: As pointed out on the

Re: [bug #51311] Checking search retries for implicit make rules

2017-06-26 Thread SF Markus Elfring
> To quote the make info pages, section 10.5.1 "Introduction to Pattern Rules": > - > A pattern rule contains the character `%' (exactly one of them) I interpreted this description in the way that one placeholder would be supported for each element in the list of prerequisites. > …; the `%'

[bug #51311] Checking search retries for implicit make rules

2017-06-26 Thread Markus Elfring
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #51311 (project make): From Mike Gran: “… So your interpretation is incorrect. …” I find that the documentation can be clarified a bit more on this aspect. I propose another software extension then. From Mike Gran: “… It needs to match at least a single character, …”

Re: [bug #51311] Checking search retries for implicit make rules

2017-06-25 Thread Philip Guenther
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Mike Gran wrote: > Follow-up Comment #1, bug #51311 (project make): You've opened this as a > bug. I believe it is not a bug. Again. I'm not a maintainer. > > Please note two things. > > 1. while "MOTD%.log: MOTD%.txt" is a pattern rule, "MOTD%.log: MOTD%.txt > MOTD%.in" is

[bug #51311] Checking search retries for implicit make rules

2017-06-25 Thread Mike Gran
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #51311 (project make): Markus, You've opened this as a bug. I believe it is not a bug. Again. I'm not a maintainer. Please note two things. 1. while "MOTD%.log: MOTD%.txt" is a pattern rule, "MOTD%.log: MOTD%.txt MOTD%.in" is not a pattern rule, because it has two ent

[bug #51311] Checking search retries for implicit make rules

2017-06-25 Thread Markus Elfring
URL: Summary: Checking search retries for implicit make rules Project: make Submitted by: elfring Submitted on: Sun 25 Jun 2017 09:40:47 PM CEST Severity: 3 - Normal Item