>>>>> "PS" == Paul Smith <p...@mad-scientist.net> writes: >> A:B C;D >> A:|B C;D
PS> No. C will never be run first, before B. If you enable parallel builds PS> then B and C might be run at the same time (but B will still be started PS> first, then C). I recall someone said that there was no guarantee of order even in the most vanilla (-non-option) of cases. OK, I sure hope it will get documented that A:B C;D implies that if B fails, C will never get run (or built etc.), and we never have to worry about C getting run first (unless we use some -option.) I.e., C will only get run after we know the results of B. PS> In the first example, first B and C will be rebuilt then A will be PS> rebuilt if either A doesn't exist, OR B or C are newer than A. PS> In the second example, first B and C will be rebuilt then A will be PS> rebuilt if A doesn't exist, period. Since B and C are related to A by PS> build order ONLY, they are built first BUT they don't play a role in PS> deciding if A should be rebuilt. All this I would never have dreamed of an I think examples should be added to pound it into the users' head. _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
