[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: % vs. "No rule to make target"
From: |
Paul Smith |
Subject: |
Re: % vs. "No rule to make target" |
Date: |
Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:48:24 -0400 |
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 11:28 +0800, address@hidden wrote:
> OK, OK, is perhaps this message,
> make: *** No rule to make target `zzzzz', needed by `aaaaa'. Stop.
> is actually triggered by several different conditions, and could
> instead be refashioned into several more exact messages, e.g., no rule
> at all, no best rule, etc.
Sorry, but I don't agree with your premise. This message is triggered
by one, and exactly one, situation: make couldn't find a rule to build
that target. It looked for an explicit rule and didn't find one; it
looked for an implicit rule and didn't find one. So it gave up. If
make had found one, it would have used it.
I don't understand the distinction you're making here between "no rule
at all" and "no best rule" (what's a "best rule"?), and just "no rule".
Maybe if you could be more precise in your definitions I'd be able to
see what you're looking for.
Cheers!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <address@hidden> Find some GNU make tips at:
http://www.gnu.org http://make.mad-scientist.us
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
- % vs. "No rule to make target", jidanni, 2008/06/06
- Re: % vs. "No rule to make target", jidanni, 2008/06/08
- Re: % vs. "No rule to make target",
Paul Smith <=
- Re: % vs. "No rule to make target", jidanni, 2008/06/09
- Re: % vs. "No rule to make target", Paul Smith, 2008/06/09
- Re: % vs. "No rule to make target", jidanni, 2008/06/09
- Re: % vs. "No rule to make target", Paul Smith, 2008/06/09
- Re: % vs. "No rule to make target", jidanni, 2008/06/09