From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Henning Makholm Subject: Re: make-3.79.1 bug breaks linux-2.5.24/drivers/net/hamradio/soundmodem Date: 24 Jun 2002 14:13:10 +0200 Sender: linux-hams-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: References: <200206222156.OAA00651@baldur.yggdrasil.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: "Adam J. Richter"'s message of "Sat, 22 Jun 2002 14:56:23 -0700" List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "Adam J. Richter" Cc: henning@makholm.net, bug-make@gnu.org, linux-hams@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sailer@ife.ee.ethz.ch Scripsit "Adam J. Richter" > >I'm not sure this is really a bug either. It is a Good Thing that make > >tries to normalize the names of targets and dependencies internally, > >lest the build may be incomplete or redundant if make does not realize > >that foo.bar and ./foo.bar is the same file. It is quite reasonable > >for $< to unfold to the *canonical* name of the file in question, I > >think. > That just makes the behavior of make less predictable. > Whatever make does with the file names internally is its own business. > Rewriting the file names passed to commands unnecessarily is > potentially a big problem. It is not rewriting file names. It is just substituting the name of the dependency for the $< variable, just as documented. > >If one absolutely wants the command to use the exact form of the > >dependency that's used in the dependency list, it's easy to simply > >reproduce that form, replacing the % by $* > Sorry, I do not understand what you mean. It wasn't right anyway. I remembered the semantics of $* when the file name contains slashes wrong. -- Henning Makholm "They are trying to prove a hypothesis, they are down here gathering data every season, they're publishing results in peer-reviewed journals. They're wrong, I think, but they are still scientists."