Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU!bww
From: bww@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Bradley White)
Newsgroups: comp.bugs.sys5
Subject: Re: make bug?
Message-ID: <676@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: 19 Jan 88 07:25:45 GMT
References: <2979@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM>
Sender: netnews@PT.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 17
Summary: make feature?

In article <2979@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM>, rogerc@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM (Roger Collins) writes:
> Why does no-command mean use default rule in one case, yet it means do
> nothing in another case?

Because one is a double suffix rule and the other a single suffix
rule.  Single suffix rules are only used if a target has no commands
AND no explicit dependents in it's FIRST entry.  So, add "x:" before
"x: x.o" while adding ".o:; cc $< -o $@", and everything should work
as you expect.  (There is usually no built-in ".o:" rule.)

> This seems like a bug to me.  I think no-command should mean if rule exists,
> use it, otherwise print diagnostic.  What do you think?

I agree.  Or at least that EVERY entry should be tested for dependents.
-- 
Bradley White <bww@cs.cmu.edu>         +1-412-268-3060
CMU Computer Science Department  40 26'33"N 79 56'48"W