Re: order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not needed

On Wed, 2025-03-19 at 09:58 -0400, Dmitry Goncharov wrote: > What do you think we should do? I think we should either do nothing and leave it as it is, or try to provide the functionality that Britton is looking for (the behavior in my description). The questions are, is this behavior strictly be

Re: order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not needed

On Mon, 2025-03-17 at 21:16 -0400, Dmitry Goncharov wrote: > > To build target A: > > - First try to build all NON-ORDER-ONLY prerequisites > > - Compare the modification time of all NON-ORDER-ONLY prerequisites > > - If any NON-ORDER-ONLY prerequisite is newer than A: &

Re: order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not needed

t; > I agree this preserves probably the most common reason for using OO > > prereqs (to create directories) > > This preserves the directory creation use case and also the use of > order-only prerequisites for synchronization as sentinel files instead > of .WAIT. FWIW I'v

Re: order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not needed

irectories) This preserves the directory creation use case and also the use of order-only prerequisites for synchronization as sentinel files instead of .WAIT. > but I don't think I like this change. > For one thing it feels too different from normal make behavior, in that > we do &q

Re: order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not needed

t running 'make all' updates existing order-only prerequisites. It is possible with this patch that a target is rebuilt with out-of-date existing order-only prerequisites. i don't see though, why someone would need to update existing order-only prerequisites. But the users are c

Re: order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not needed

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 4:12 AM Paul Smith wrote: > > On Sat, 2025-03-15 at 08:28 -0400, Dmitry Goncharov wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 8:12 AM Paul Smith wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 2025-03-08 at 11:34 -0900, Britton Kerin wrote: > > > > What confuses me is that since the explicitly requeste

RE: order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not needed

AM To: Cook, Malcolm ; bug-make@gnu.org Subject: Re: order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not needed The patch attached to the savannah issue Dmitry provided below does include a doc change. I haven't reviewed it yet. Basically the current behavior is: To build target A: -

Re: order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not needed

The patch attached to the savannah issue Dmitry provided below does include a doc change. I haven't reviewed it yet. Basically the current behavior is: To build target A: - First try to build all prerequisites - Compare the modification time of all NON-ORDER-ONLY prerequisites - If an

Re: order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not needed

Hi, as someone who uses order only prerequisites frequently, I would appreciate at restatement of what the proposed change to behavior is so I can advise whether I expect my use cases to be affected. Perhaps in addition to a code patch a proposed documentation patch could help other lurkers

Re: order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not needed

On Sat, 2025-03-15 at 08:28 -0400, Dmitry Goncharov wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 8:12 AM Paul Smith wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2025-03-08 at 11:34 -0900, Britton Kerin wrote: > > > What confuses me is that since the explicitly requested foo > > > exists and isn't out of date with respect to any n

[bug #66915] Avoid rebuilding existing order-only prerequisites.

URL: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66915> Summary: Avoid rebuilding existing order-only prerequisites. Group: make Submitter: dgoncharov Submitted: Sat 15 Mar 2025 12:18:34 PM UTC Severity: 3 -

Re: order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not needed

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 8:12 AM Paul Smith wrote: > > On Sat, 2025-03-08 at 11:34 -0900, Britton Kerin wrote: > > What confuses me is that since the explicitly requested foo exists > > and isn't out of date with respect to any non-order-only prereqs (in > > the example it doesn't have any) and the

[bug #66915] Avoid rebuilding existing order-only prerequisites.

Additional Item Attachment, bug #66915 (group make): File name: sv66915.diff Size: 5KiB AGPL NOTICE These attachments are served by Savane. You can download the corresponding source code of Savane at https

[bug #66915] Avoid rebuilding existing order-only prerequisites.

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #66915 (group make): Suggested by Britton Kerin here https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-make/2025-03/msg6.html. This is an excerpt from that email. "What confuses me is that since the explicitly requested foo exists and isn't out of date with respect to any non-or

Re: order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not needed

erequisites, and only if it is out of date does make go back and try to build the order-only prerequisites. Instead, make treats all prerequisites identically in every way right up to the point where it's determining whether the target is up to date: at that step it skips over the order-only p

Re: order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not needed

; > > clean: > > rm -f foo bar > > Possibly I'm misunderstanding your test case but none of the results > you showed look wrong to me. > > Order-only prerequisites are defined in what I hope is a clear way in > this paragraph: > > https://www.gnu.org/sof

Re: order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not needed

handling an explicit request for foo.  Is this a > bug? > > $ cat Makefile > foo: | bar >     cp $| $@ > > bar: actual_source >     cp $< $@ > > clean: >     rm -f foo bar Possibly I'm misunderstanding your test case but none of the results you s

order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not needed

In this example, I would not expect bar to be updated due to actual_source when foo is requested. The timestamp dependency chain should be broken between foo and bar and Make should be able to figure that out when handling an explicit request for foo. Is this a bug? $ cat Makefile foo: | bar

Re: Order-only prerequisites

se changes at the moment and rebuilding A takes a long time. But when I rebuild both of them, especially when I do a full rebuild, they should be built in the order of their dependencies, as usual. I had hoped that order-only prerequisites would do what I want, but I see now they don't and I&

Re: Order-only prerequisites

On Wed, 2023-06-07 at 04:20 +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote: > What I want to achieve is that a and b can be made independently, > but when both of them are made, a is always made first. I assumed > that's what order-only prerequisites are for That's not what it's for. In

Re: Order-only prerequisites

On Wed, 07 Jun 2023 08:29:15 +0200 > As I said, a way to specify in which order recipes are invoked > (here, a before b) if they are invoked, without influencing whether > they are invoked (only a, only b or a and b, as given on the command > line). So you really don't want any target to depend up

Re: Order-only prerequisites

Henrik Carlqvist wrote: > > Consider this makefile: > > > > .PHONY: a b > > a:; @echo a > > b:; @echo b > > b: | a > > Your problem with this Makefile is that it never creates any files a or b. That's why I made them phony. But that was just for demonstration. I get the same effects with this m

Re: Order-only prerequisites

> Consider this makefile: > > .PHONY: a b > a:; @echo a > b:; @echo b > b: | a Your problem with this Makefile is that it never creates any files a or b. This means that your order only prerequisite on a allways has to be made. > % make b a > a > b > make: Nothing to be done for 'a'. > > Correc

Order-only prerequisites

GNU Make 4.4.1 Consider this makefile: .PHONY: a b a:; @echo a b:; @echo b b: | a What I want to achieve is that a and b can be made independently, but when both of them are made, a is always made first. I assumed that's what order-only prerequisites are for, but they don't seem to

Re: Potential Bug: `.PHONY` targets and order-only prerequisites

equisite down the graph. Agreed we would never mention an indirect dependency. That is not an invalid use of order-only prerequisites anyway; the order-only prerequisite will be relevant only for its immediate target not "parents" of that target and if the immediate target is not phony th

Re: Potential Bug: `.PHONY` targets and order-only prerequisites

On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 12:25 PM Paul Smith wrote: > Maybe what you're saying is that make should throw an error or warning > if you try to add an order-only prerequisite to a phony target, telling > you that it will have no effect on your makefile? Having a phony target depend (usually indirectl

Re: Potential Bug: `.PHONY` targets and order-only prerequisites

Hi Paul and Jacob, On 5/21/22 18:24, Paul Smith wrote: On Wed, 2022-05-18 at 14:36 -0700, Jacob Kopczynski wrote: The thing that the docs refer to as "impose order" is not a single thing, but two. I would characterize a normal prerequisite as doing three things rather than two: - update-marking

Re: Potential Bug: `.PHONY` targets and order-only prerequisites

On Sat, 2022-05-21 at 19:06 +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > By "once all children are complete" you are implying the "existence" > of the children (which make(1) doesn't really check, but one can > think of it as if it did). Perhaps that's the confusion. Make doesn't care about files at all per

Re: Potential Bug: `.PHONY` targets and order-only prerequisites

ly > confusing - a phony target which drops only update-marking is a > contradiction in terms, so the natural assumption to make is that the > effect of "order-only" prereqs is not that, and is instead something > non-paradoxical. Order-only prerequisites weren't created be

Re: Potential Bug: `.PHONY` targets and order-only prerequisites

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 5:37 PM Jacob Kopczynski wrote: >> - it might make sense to state explicitly that order-only prereqs >> which are phony behave in all ways like standard prerequisites. This statement is simply incorrect. Order-only prerequisites which are phony do not

Re: Potential Bug: `.PHONY` targets and order-only prerequisites

ni's recommendations, which I'll reproduce below for convenience. The primary one was the suggestion of alternate names that might be used for what are currently called order-only prerequisites - "existence-only prerequisites" seems like the clearest one to me. Thanks, Jacob

Re: Potential Bug: `.PHONY` targets and order-only prerequisites

As described in the docs there are only two things a prerequisite can do: impose order and effect the out-of-date decision of the target. Order-only prerequisites do one of them (impose order) and don't do the other (effect out-of-date decisions). What are the "considerably more" t

Re: Potential Bug: `.PHONY` targets and order-only prerequisites

Occasionally, however, you have a situation where you want to impose > a specific ordering on the rules to be invoked without forcing the > target to be updated if one of those rules is executed. In that case, > you want to define order-only prerequisites. The natural reading of this strong

Re: Potential Bug: `.PHONY` targets and order-only prerequisites

On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 22:32 +, Martin Dorey wrote: > >  all your targets are .PHONY, and thus are always rebuilt anyway > > If you "make down", the rule for "down-clean" doesn't run.  They're > only rebuilt if something causes them to be con

Re: Potential Bug: `.PHONY` targets and order-only prerequisites

> all your targets are .PHONY, and thus are always rebuilt anyway If you "make down", the rule for "down-clean" doesn't run. They're only rebuilt if something causes them to be considered. > order-only prerequisites are totally irrelevant and have no impact

Re: Potential Bug: `.PHONY` targets and order-only prerequisites

and "c" are completed, then make will decide whether "a" needs to be rebuilt. For that decision make will ignore any order-only prerequisites and only consider the normal prerequisites.

Re: Potential Bug: `.PHONY` targets and order-only prerequisites

d. In that case, > you want to define order-only prerequisites. What this means is that if you have: a: b | c then the ordering statement (that both b and c will be rebuilt (if necessary) before a's recipe is started) is still in place for both prerequisites b and c. However, the se

Potential Bug: `.PHONY` targets and order-only prerequisites

I'm unsure whether this is a bug or just undocumented, but I found a confusing interaction in a simple Makefile: > .PHONY: up > up: down | down-clean > docker-compose up -d > .PHONY: up-clean > up-clean: down-clean up > .PHONY: down > down: > docker-compose down > .PHONY: down-clean > down

[bug #61069] Document phony order-only prerequisites.

Update of bug #61069 (project make): Status:None => Fixed Assigned to:None => psmith Open/Closed:Open => Closed Operating System:

[bug #61069] Document phony order-only prerequisites.

Additional Item Attachment, bug #61069 (project make): File name: sv_61069_document_orderonly_beats_phony.diff Size:0 KB ___ Reply to this

[bug #61069] Document phony order-only prerequisites.

URL: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61069> Summary: Document phony order-only prerequisites. Project: make Submitted by: dgoncharov Submitted on: Sat 21 Aug 2021 09:17:13 PM UTC Severity: 3 - Normal

Re: $< ignores order-only prerequisites

On Fri, 2015-01-16 at 12:52 -0800, Parke wrote: > It appears that if there are no normal prerequisites, $< will ignore > any order-only prerequisites. > > This is not the behavior I expected, and I could not find > documentation describing this behavior. I agree it sh

$< ignores order-only prerequisites

Hi bug-make, It appears that if there are no normal prerequisites, $< will ignore any order-only prerequisites. This is not the behavior I expected, and I could not find documentation describing this behavior. Possibly relevant documentation: https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.h

Re: bug with order-only prerequisites & implicit rules implementation ?

On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Jason Vas Dias wrote: > Please could anyone explain the behaviour of this test makefile (attached) : > > > TMP:=/tmp > > %.ext: > touch $@ > > .PHONY: *.oop > %.oop: > @echo 'A phony order-only prequisite of /tmp/a.t'; > > #$(TMP)/%.t: | %.oop > >

bug with order-only prerequisites & implicit rules implementation ?

Greetings - Please could anyone explain the behaviour of this test makefile (attached) : TMP:=/tmp %.ext: touch $@ .PHONY: *.oop %.oop: @echo 'A phony order-only prequisite of /tmp/a.t'; #$(TMP)/%.t: | %.oop $(TMP)/%.t:$(TMP)/%.ext | %.oop @echo Specific Rule %.t:%.e

bug with order-only prerequisites & implicit rules implementation ?

Greetings - Please could anyone explain the behaviour of this test makefile (attached) : TMP:=/tmp %.ext: touch $@ .PHONY: *.oop %.oop: @echo 'A phony order-only prequisite of /tmp/a.t'; #$(TMP)/%.t: | %.oop $(TMP)/%.t:$(TMP)/%.ext | %.oop @echo Specific Rule %.t:%.e

Re: order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

and I always assumed it was equivalent. But it's not. With "-j", clean and all are invoked in parallel, which is brilliant, but causes this ordering problem. Thanks to this thread, I understand why order-only prerequisites are not the answer, and the MAKECMDGOALS suggestion pointed me

Re: add Order-only Prerequisites example

> "PG" == Philip Guenther writes: PG> Nope, wrong. If you want make to guarantee that, you must express it PG> as a dependency between C and B. OK thanks. ___ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: add Order-only Prerequisites example

On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 4:24 PM, wrote: >> "PS" == Paul Smith 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). Paul, as you kno

Re: add Order-only Prerequisites example

> "PS" == Paul Smith 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

Re: add Order-only Prerequisites example

On Sun, 2012-07-08 at 06:04 +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote: > Can you please add at least _one_ example to > (info "(make) Prerequisite Types") > also consider retitling it "Order-only Prerequisites" or adding a sub-section. > > Does it mean the only differenc

add Order-only Prerequisites example

Can you please add at least _one_ example to (info "(make) Prerequisite Types") also consider retitling it "Order-only Prerequisites" or adding a sub-section. Does it mean the only difference between A:B C;D A:|B C;D is that C might be run

Re: order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 06/12/2012 02:06 AM, Philip Guenther wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Stefano Lattarini >> wrote: >> ... >>> I was hoping to be able to the order-only prerequisites to enforce ordering >&g

Re: order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

On 06/12/2012 02:06 AM, Philip Guenther wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Stefano Lattarini > wrote: > ... >> I was hoping to be able to the order-only prerequisites to enforce ordering >> between .PHONY targets. At this point, I guess I should state the problem &g

Re: order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

gt;> then I get: >> >> $ make a # Not what I expected, but what actually happened. >> d >> c >> b >> a >> >> which is not what I'd have expected reading the documentation above; what >> I would have expected was that &q

Re: order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

hat I'd have expected reading the documentation above; what > I would have expected was that "a" alone would be run: > > $ make a # What I expected, but did not happen. > a No, that's not how order-only prerequisites work. An order-only prerequisite is treated

Re: order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: ... > I was hoping to be able to the order-only prerequisites to enforce ordering > between .PHONY targets.  At this point, I guess I should state the problem > I am trying to solve rather than just the attempts I've made

Re: order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

ke this: >> >>ALL = a b c d >>default: >>echo Specify a target: $(ALL); exit 1 >>.PHONY: $(ALL) > > What is your intent for declaring all the targets PHONY in this Makefile? > I was hoping to be able to the order-only prerequisites to en

Re: order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > The GNU make 3.82 manual reads: > >    Normally, this is exactly what you want: if a target's prerequisite >    is updated, then the target should also be updated. > >    Occasionally, however, you have a situation where you want to impos

order-only prerequisites don't behave as I'd have expected after reading the documentation

The GNU make 3.82 manual reads: Normally, this is exactly what you want: if a target's prerequisite is updated, then the target should also be updated. Occasionally, however, you have a situation where you want to impose a specific ordering on the rules to be invoked without forci

BUG: Pattern rules incorrectly treat order-only prerequisites as normal prerequisites.

Hi, This is related to https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?func=detailitem&item_id=104345 except that I am filing it as a bug. The following makefile works fine *good.mk *default: bin/a.out bin: mkdir $@ bin/a.out: a.c | bin touch $@ *bad.mk *default: bin/a.out bin: mkdir $@ bin/%.

Re: Order-only Prerequisites Suppress some Error Checking

; rule in the section 4.7 sense at all, given that its only purpose was to express an ordering relationship. To put it another way, imagine that order-only prerequisites were specified through a different syntax mechanism that did not look like an ordinary rule to gmake. Would this (should this) order-only

Re: Order-only Prerequisites Suppress some Error Checking

On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 09:41 -0400, Tony Strauss wrote: > To put it another way, imagine that order-only prerequisites were > specified through a different syntax mechanism that did not look like > an ordinary rule to gmake. Would this (should this) order-only > prerequisite count as

Re: Order-only Prerequisites Suppress some Error Checking

gt; $(DERIVED_OBJECT)/test.o) has given make the idea that it knows how to > build $(DERIVED_OBJECT)/test.o, even though it has no more idea than > before. I think that make should exit with the same error code in the > second and third examples (that a target just having order-only > p

Order-only Prerequisites Suppress some Error Checking

My targets live in a different directory than my source, and so I want to ensure that the target directory exists before building the target. This can be accomplished in lots of ways, but one way that I thought of was to use order-only prerequisites for this (actually, originally I just was using

[bug #17880] Manual needs example for order-only prerequisites

Update of bug #17880 (project make): Status:None => Fixed Assigned to:None => psmith Open/Closed:Open => Closed Fixed Release:

[bug #17880] Manual needs example for order-only prerequisites

Update of bug #17880 (project make): Item Group:None => Documentation ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Messa

Re: [bug #17880] Manual needs example for order-only prerequisites

On 9/28/06, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... Last time this was requested there was noone that could cook up a sensible example for this strange feature. So unless you come up with a good proposal it may not happen. Finding a sensible example is easy: use it to require that generated

Re: [bug #17880] Manual needs example for order-only prerequisites

> Details: > > This section needs an example and/or more clarification. > > http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#index-order_002donly-prerequisites-155 > Last time this was requested there was noone that could cook up a sensible example for this strange feature. So unless you come u

[bug #17880] Manual needs example for order-only prerequisites

URL: <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?17880> Summary: Manual needs example for order-only prerequisites Project: make Submitted by: yost Submitted on: Thursday 09/28/2006 at 13:05 Severity: 3 - Normal

Re: add order-only-prerequisites example

gt; Without plenty of interspersed examples, that still will take deep dj> concentration to understand, even more if the reader is not a native dj> English speaker. Undoubtedly. Order-only prerequisites are definitely an advanced feature. I doubt most people are really able to grok them

Re: add order-only-prerequisites example

There's no way I could become a make whiz to the depths of order-only-prerequisites with just the docs provided. Wait, I see order-only-prerequisites is of new invention. OK, do provide one tiny example in the docs, as some of our brains are much more example oriented than description orient

Re: add order-only-prerequisites example

%% Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: dj> TARGETS : NORMAL-PREREQUISITES | ORDER-ONLY-PREREQUISITES dj> Well, you got me there. Without examples, we have trouble grasping dj> how to utilize what this Info page is talking about. Sometimes features are advan

add order-only-prerequisites example

TARGETS : NORMAL-PREREQUISITES | ORDER-ONLY-PREREQUISITES Well, you got me there. Without examples, we have trouble grasping how to utilize what this Info page is talking about. Obviously the authors must have learned about make from something that we can't find on our Debian s