At 9:29pm -0400 Sat, 29 Oct 2011, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 06:17:09PM -0400, Kevin Hunter wrote:
This is proving very cumbersome, however, as I'm unable to re-make
just the affected files. For instance

$ make -j1 | head; sleep; make -j1 | head

The attached output indeed should never happen. What file did you
touch to generate it?

Between those two make runs? Nada. (That's why I showed it working in one shell command line.) If you mean before I started the compile, I'd touched a bunch of ScPostIt* related files in sc/inc and sc/source/core/data.

However, I churned through the slow build time about 20 times last night until I was finally able to build 'sc'. Now the behavior seems to be correct, in that only the necessary files are actually built. I.e. I can no longer recreate that behavior.

From the outside, it smells to me like there is a "transactional" behavior defined in the make files. That is, if all the files of a certain transaction don't get built properly, then the build redoes all of them. Is that expected/intentional behavior? Or did I just hit some corner case in my sc/ modifications?

Should not at least the first 3 completed executions no longer need
to be re-executed?

Yes. Could you check the timestamps of
(1) [...]/workdir/unxlngx6.pro/Dep/CxxObject/sc/source/filter/dif/difexp.d
being newer than
(2) [...]/workdir/unxlngx6.pro/CxxObject/sc/source/filter/dif/difexp.o
and that again being newer than
(3) [...]/sc/source/filter/dif/difexp.cxx
, please?

Last night, (2) was newer than (1), (1) was newer than (3). Now, after a couple of successful builds, (3) is newer than (2), which is newer than (1). Summary ("<=" == "younger than"):

Before success: (2) <= (1) <= (3)
After success:  (3) <= (2) <= (1)

In any event, since I can't recreate it anymore, and it seems to be working fine, I'm moving on ...

Thanks,

Kevin
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Reply via email to