[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: non-recursive build question

From: Noel Yap
Subject: Re: non-recursive build question
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:20:34 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040212)

Paul D. Smith wrote:
%% Noel Yap <address@hidden> writes:

  ny> OTOH, you can have a different definition of "updated".  Order
  ny> rules consider something "updated" iff that something exists.

I'm not sure that this is quite true... maybe we're just have a
terminology problem.

Order-only rules don't care about "updated-ness" in any way.  All they
do is enforce an order in which make will perform steps, without making
any statement about dependencies.  If A has an order-only prerequisite
B, then _IF_ B needs to be updated it will always be updated before A.
Furthermore, the decision on whether to update A will not take any
account of whether B had to be updated or not.

Yeah, I think we're saying the same thing but with different POV's.

From my POV, GNU make now has two ways to specify the conditions in which 
something is built due to one of its dependencies:
1. Normal dependencies: the LHS is built if the RHS's timestamp changes
2. Order dependencies: the LHS is built if the RHS didn't exist

IMHO, it'd be great (although I wouldn't know what type of syntax one could 
use) if one could define customized conditions (eg MD5 hash changes, version 
changes, ...).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]