Message-Id: <200006240638.JAA15429@alpha.netvision.net.il> Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 09:40:28 +0200 X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.1.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Jason Green CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: (message from Jason Green on Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:56:28 +0100) Subject: Re: Make file wildcards References: <395309A1 DOT 881A2311 AT pacbell DOT net> <200006230948 DOT MAA02794 AT mailgw1 DOT netvision DOT net DOT il> <3953D200 DOT 897086E1 AT pacbell DOT net> Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > From: Jason Green > Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp > Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:56:28 +0100 > > > > This is expected behavior. As written, the implicit rule you used > > > is just another implicit rule, not unlike the one that Make already > > > knows about. When Make sees more than one implicit rule to build the > > > same target, it chooses the first one, which will always be the one > > > that's built into Make. > > Do you really mean that? I don't follow. Normally if you redefine a > rule it should overide the built in rule. Implicit rule is not a rule, in the sense you mean above. A Makefile can legitimately have several different implicit rules for the same %.o pattern, and they are all valid. Make will chose whatever it sees fit out of them.