The attached patch use normal dependency instead of order-only dependency for static libraries.
2017-11-20 12:58 GMT+08:00 高增琦 <pgf...@gmail.com>: > > > 2017-11-20 2:25 GMT+08:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > >> =?UTF-8?B?6auY5aKe55Cm?= <pgf...@gmail.com> writes: >> > I very much look forward to hearing everyone's views on this issue. >> > If the solution mentioned before is ok, I will start to complete it. >> >> Please don't top-post, it makes the flow of the conversation very hard >> to follow. >> > > Sorry, my fault, I am so anxious. > > >> > Recently, I found 'psql' is not rebuilt automatically after >> > editing 'fe_utils/psqlscan.l'. >> > ... >> > It's OK for 'libpq' since 'libpq' is a dynamic library. >> > For a static library such as 'libpgfeutils.a', should we >> > add dependency rule in Makefile? >> >> Hm. I think what you're saying is that when we copied the makefile >> patterns used for libpq.so to use for libpgport and libpgfeutils, >> we did the wrong thing because those are static not dynamic libraries. >> We don't have to relink psql if libpq.so gets some non-API-relevant >> changes, but we do need to relink it if libpgport.a does, so I suppose >> you are right. However, this doesn't seem like the right way to >> fix it: >> >> > # add STLIBS as normal prerequisite >> > psql: $(OBJS) $(STLIBS) | submake-libpq submake-libpgport >> submake-libpgfeutils >> > $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(OBJS) $(LDFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS_EX) $(LIBS) -o $@$(X) >> >> Your point is that the static libraries should be treated as normal >> dependencies not order-only ones, so building that behavior like >> this seems pretty bizarre. >> >> I think what we want is something more like >> >> ../../src/port/libpgport.a: submake-libpgport >> >> ../../src/fe_utils/libpgfeutils.a: submake-libpgfeutils >> >> psql: $(OBJS) ../../src/port/libpgport.a >> ../../src/fe_utils/libpgfeutils.a | submake-libpq >> $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(OBJS) $(LDFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS_EX) $(LIBS) >> -o $@$(X) >> >> where of course the library file names need to be wrapped up in macros, >> but this is what it'd look like after macro expansion. (I'm not sure >> this is right in detail, but my point is that we don't want order-only >> dependencies for these libraries.) >> >> regards, tom lane >> > > Thank you, I will try it this way. > > > -- > GaoZengqi > pgf...@gmail.com > zengqi...@gmail.com > -- GaoZengqi pgf...@gmail.com zengqi...@gmail.com
0001-add-dependency-between-client-executables-and-static.patch
Description: Binary data
