On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 2:18 PM David A. Wheeler <dwhee...@dwheeler.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 12:10:26 -0800, Britton Kerin <britton.ke...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > The trickery required is not too fancy: > > > > foo.o: foo.c Makefile > > ... > > or > > > > foo.o: foo.c $(PARANOID_REBUILD) > > ... > > > > Then use when desired: > > (export PARANOID_REBUILD=Makefile && Make) > > No. > > That's not at *ALL* the same thing. With those uses, *all* rules > are rerun if *ANY* change happens in the Makefile, even if almost
No, just the rules that :Makefile, which you can easily tune if it matters. Heck, you can include some_fragment.mk that has the recipes that are a concern and depend on that if you really need that granularity, and then the dependency that you want is explicit. > all the rules and parameters do not change at all. > Since the whole point of make is to "only run what's needed", > that doesn't resolve the problem at all. > > In contrast, ".COMMANDCHANGE" would only run a rule > if that PARTICULAR rule changed (once expanded) in the Makefile. > In many cases that would skip much of the work. > Which is the point. I get it, I just doubt it's worth the extra feature for something that can be expressed in terms of existing features. _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
