On 25.06.2015 09:08, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Stefan Weil <[email protected]> writes: > >> Am 23.06.2015 um 19:31 schrieb Peter Maydell: >>> On 23 June 2015 at 14:35, Michal Privoznik <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Yeah, that could work too. For some reason I thought that having it >>>> there would result in making 'all' just under tests/. But Now that I >>>> tried it out it works just nicely. >>> Have you tested both "build in the source tree" and "build in >>> a separate directory from the source tree", by the way? >>> >>> thanks >>> -- PMM >> >> Both will work, as the modification only adds a dependency. >> >> Do we care that running "make check" will take longer with this >> patch? Make needs some time to check all dependencies for >> "all", even if nothing has to be done. > > If this bothers us, we could try making it an order-only prerequisite: > > check: | all
I'm not sure this is the right approach. What is there to check if nothing has been built? I think this dependency is not order-only. It should be a real dependency. > > https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Prerequisite-Types.html > >> I feel a little bit uneasy with something depending on all. >> Maybe some day we'll want to include check in the default >> build. Then all would depend on check which depends on > > I agree that depending on the default goal (here: all) isn't nice. > >> all which depends on check and so on. An intermediate >> make target could solve that: >> >> all: full-build >> check: full-build >> full-build: $(DOCS) $(TOOLS) $(HELPERS-y) recurse-all modules Well, if we ever do that, it can be done this way. Or any other way that would be applicable to the code in the future. Michal
