Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 01:16:08AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I think this really boils down to where we draw the "this is good >> enough" line. I am not sure if losing the file as in $gmane/215211 >> is common enough to be special cased to buy us much, while leaving >> other ".depend/foo.o.d was updated to contain a wrong info" cases >> still broken. > > Hmm. Yeah, I was thinking it might be more common than ordinary munging > due to something like an interrupted "git clean -x". But given that: > > 1. As far as I can tell, it is not a situation that can happen through > regular use of checkout/make/etc, and... > > 2. We have zero reports of it happening in practice (I only discovered > it while explicitly trying to break the Makefile), and... > > 3. It is just one of many possible breakages, all of which can be > fixed by "git clean -dx" if you suspect issues... > > let's just leave it. Thanks for a sanity check.
The only case that worries me is when make or cc gets interrupted. As long as make removes the ultimate target *.o in such a case, it is fine to leave a half-written .depend/foo.o.d (or getting it removed) behind. How expensive to generate the dependency for a single foo.c file into a temporary without compiling it into foo.o, and comparing the resulting dependency with existing .depend/foo.o.d? If it is very cheap, it might be worth doing it before linking the final build product and error the build out when we see discrepancies. I dunno. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
