[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: auto-dep cannot possibly work?
From: |
Mark Galeck (CW) |
Subject: |
RE: auto-dep cannot possibly work? |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:28:14 -0800 |
>OK, there is one problem! What if a particularly clever developer, decides to
>not "copy" or make a new file with the same name as the old one "foobar.h".
>But instead, if he does
>mv include1/foo.h include1/foobar.h
--------------------
Well, I think this is not my problem, but the developers (I am actually a C
developer too, it's just that right now I wear a make hat)! Even in a very
simple makefile, if the user decides to "mv" and not edit anything, they better
be aware, that the timestamp may be old, and so make will not remake anything
that depends on what they moved.
So I think it is OK not to remake in that case. Semantics of the OS... "move"
system call.
Mark
- Re: auto-dep cannot possibly work?, (continued)
- Re: auto-dep cannot possibly work?, Paul Smith, 2009/11/14
- is it possible to have a prerequisite, which, when non-existent, causes make to ignore it?, Mark Galeck (CW), 2009/11/15
- RE: auto-dep cannot possibly work?, Mark Galeck (CW), 2009/11/15
- RE: auto-dep cannot possibly work?,
Mark Galeck (CW) <=
- Re: auto-dep cannot possibly work?, Stephan Beal, 2009/11/15
- RE: auto-dep cannot possibly work?, Mark Galeck (CW), 2009/11/15
- RE: auto-dep cannot possibly work?, Paul Smith, 2009/11/15
- RE: auto-dep cannot possibly work?, Mark Galeck (CW), 2009/11/15
- RE: auto-dep cannot possibly work?, Paul Smith, 2009/11/16
- RE: auto-dep cannot possibly work?, Mark Galeck (CW), 2009/11/16
- RE: auto-dep cannot possibly work?, Paul Smith, 2009/11/16
- RE: auto-dep cannot possibly work?, Mark Galeck (CW), 2009/11/16
- RE: auto-dep cannot possibly work?, Paul Smith, 2009/11/16
- RE: auto-dep cannot possibly work?, Mark Galeck (CW), 2009/11/17