RE: Expanded rules for scripts

[Bernard Dautrevaux]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pavel Roskin [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 5:09 PM
> To: Akim Demaille
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Expanded rules for scripts
> 

        <skipped>

> +Suffix rules cannot have any additional dependencies.  It may be
> +tempting to write an explicit rule without commands that 
> would add those
> +dependencies.  However, you should not do so, since @sc{bsd} 
> make will
> +completely ignore the suffix rule for those targets, even if the
> +explicit rule has no commands.
> +

I don't really understand here: you're saying that

foobar.o: foo.h bar.h

should be avoided if I want to use the standard '.c.o' suffix rule on some
makes? Do you think there really exist such broken makes?

Or is the problem that you should not place a

foobar.o: foobar.c foo.h bar.h

rule? I think I remember the latter fooling some old (probably BSD) make :-)

Regards,

        Bernard

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:    +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:    +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail: address@hidden
                address@hidden
--------------------------------------------