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
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:
> > - Try to build all ORD
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 5:59 AM Dmitry Goncharov
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 8:06 AM Paul Smith wrote:
> > I see from the patch: you don't mean "never" you mean, only if the
> > prerequisite does not exist will it be updated.
>
> Right.
>
> > I agree this preserves probably the most common
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 8:06 AM Paul Smith wrote:
> I see from the patch: you don't mean "never" you mean, only if the
> prerequisite does not exist will it be updated.
Right.
> I agree this preserves probably the most common reason for using OO
> prereqs (to create directories)
This preserves
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 8:12 AM Paul Smith wrote:
> The question we have think carefully about is what sort of backward-
> compatibility issues, if any, we could introduce. Are there situations
> where people are relying on the current behavior?
It is possible that someone relies that running 'm
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
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:
-
ers get up to speed with the proposal???
>
>
>
> From: bug-make-bounces+mec=stowers@gnu.org
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 7:10:06 AM
> To: bug-make@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: order-only prerequisites themselves get rebuilt when not
> needed
>
> On Sat, 2025-03-15
isites 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
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
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
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 therefore isn't getting rebuilt,
> I wouldn't expect there to be
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 4:59 AM Paul Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2025-03-06 at 13:28 -0900, Britton Kerin wrote:
> > 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 s
On Thu, 2025-03-06 at 13:28 -0900, Britton Kerin wrote:
> 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
14 matches
Mail list logo
