Re: toolchain/34934

[Roland Illig <roland.illig%gmx.de@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR bin/34934; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Roland Illig <roland.illig%gmx.de@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: toolchain/34934
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2022 01:18:57 +0100

 David A. Holland wrote on 29 Oct 2006:
  > It's not a matter of what the rules mean
 
 I disagree.  It's exactly a matter of what the rules mean.  From your
 description, you seem to think that "target1 target2: source" means that
 this is a single rule that builds 2 targets.
 
 Unfortunately,
 https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/make.html#tag_2=
 0_76_13_04
 talks a lot about the syntax of the dependency declarations but misses
 to mention explicitly that each target is handled separately, there are
 no groups of targets.  The manual page for make(1) is as silent as POSIX
 in this regard.
 
 NetBSD make and GNU make agree on how to interpret the dependency
 "target1 target2: source" though.  They both treat the targets as
 independent.  Therefore I don't see any need to change the code.  It
 would be good to mention this independence in the documentation and ask
 POSIX to add it to the specification for their next issue.
 
 David A. Holland wrote on 29 Oct 2006:
  > after running the recipe make is required to check and
  > ascertain that both a1 and a2 have been updated
 
 If we assume that a1 and a2 are independent (as GNU make and NetBSD make
 treat them), why would make be required to check that both files have
 been updated?