From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Bug in Make? Completely incorrect behavior.
Date:	Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:57:37 +0200
Organization:	NetVision Israel
Lines:	45
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000112154552.258B-100000@is>
References:	<387bc68e DOT 493166929 AT news DOT globalserve DOT net> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000112090212 DOT 28074P-100000 AT is> <387c53ff DOT 34216248 AT news DOT globalserve DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	is.elta.co.il
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	news.netvision.net.il 947685653 22005 199.203.121.2 (12 Jan 2000 14:00:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT netvision DOT net DOT il
NNTP-Posting-Date:	12 Jan 2000 14:00:53 GMT
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
In-Reply-To:	<387c53ff.34216248@news.globalserve.net>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, SpamKiLr wrote:

>   `missing target pattern.  Stop.'
>   `multiple target patterns.  Stop.'
>   `target pattern contains no `%'.  Stop.'
>        These are generated for malformed static pattern rules.  The first
>        means there's no pattern in the target section of the rule, the
>        second means there are multiple patterns in the target section,
>        and the third means the target doesn't contain a pattern character
>        (`%').
> 
> Which is incorrect, you or the info file?

We are both correct (the % is only relevant to the third message, not to 
the first two).  But this isn't helping you; I need to see the Makefile 
to be able to say something really useful.

> In any case it asserts that the problem is with the target section.
> That's $(DOCTARGETFILE), not $(DOCSOURCEFILES).

No, it doesn't.  The Makefile reader code in Make is an awful mess, and 
it's quite possible that Make is falling off its (rather limited) sense
and misdiagnoses the problem.  I *really* need to see the Makefile, if 
you want me to help.

> just to satisfy your curiosity

Why do I always need to sustain offence in order to help you, Paul?  I'm 
not in the business of satisfying my curiosity about your Makefile; I have 
better things to do with my free time, believe me.  If you really want my 
help, please let me do that in my usual nerdyish way: that's the only way
I'm capable to do it.  If you do NOT want my help, please say so, and I 
will stop reading this thread.

Now, can you PLEASE post the Makefile here??

> You found me a bug, but nothing to do with pattern rules, since it
> isn't a pattern rule...

It isn't supposed to be a pattern rule: Make complains about a ``target 
pattern'', not about a pattern rule.

But this is all academic; if you don't post the Makefile, I can do 
nothing more to help you except refer you to the source code.

- Raw text -