>>Just to be clear, I tried this makefile:
>>
>> $ cat Makefile
>> foo: FORCE ; @echo '$$? = $?'
>> FORCE:
>>
>> $ make
>> $? = FORCE
>>
>>every time, so I don't understand your comment that FORCE should be
>>visible in $?, as if it weren't visible there... it IS visible there?
>The difference to the mentioned example is the missing 'touch foo'
>prior to running make. Depending on whether foo exists, $? will or will
>not be empty; its commands, however, will always be run (as expected).
>My point is that if a target's commands get run, should it be obvious
>that then $? cannot be empty?
This patch seems to create the expected behavior. I haven't found any
situations where it does the wrong thing. Anyone have comments on this?
Can anyone think of a situation where a prerequisite does not exist, and
is NOT considered updated/changed relative to the target that depends on
it?
When the prerequisite exists there can be more complexity, of course.
But if it doesn't exist?
--- remake.c 7 Dec 2005 11:33:38 -0000 1.119
+++ remake.c 3 Jan 2006 21:26:02 -0000
@@ -530,7 +530,10 @@
break;
if (!running)
- d->changed = file_mtime (d->file) != mtime;
+ /* The prereq is considered changed if the timestamp has changed while
+ it was built, OR it doesn't exist. */
+ d->changed = ((file_mtime (d->file) != mtime)
+ || (mtime == NONEXISTENT_MTIME));
lastd = d;
d = d->next;
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at:
http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
