From: utzoo!decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!essick Newsgroups: net.bugs Title: Re: make dependency rules inadequate - (nf) Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.266 Posted: Fri Jul 23 11:25:39 1982 Received: Mon Jul 26 05:24:49 1982 #R:uiucdcs:8000001:uiucdcs:8000002:000:837 uiucdcs!essick Jul 23 11:02:00 1982 Oh well, it appears that I was wrong and that if I had used my head things would have been more obvious. I figured that since the a.c file is where the `#include "a.h"` is, then a.c should be dependent on a.h. Boy was I wrong. I had thought that the dependencies should look like: all -> a.o -> a.c -> a.h when in fact they should look like: all -> a.o +-> a.c ! +-> a.h Thanks for all the responses straightening me out. Just for the book: the first dependency tree has the following fault: Suppose that a.h is modified and, using my suggestion of passing modification status back up the tree, we decided to recompile a.c into a.o.. Well, a.c still hasn't been touched, so the next time, things will be recompiled because a.h has a more recent modification date than a.c. Ray Essick uiucdcs!essick