On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:51:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 22/05/2013 12:50, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:40:23PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> Il 22/05/2013 11:42, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > >>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:22:52AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >>>> Il 22/05/2013 10:52, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > >>>>> The fix is simple here: don't use ccache. I don't. > >>>>> > >>>>> In fact, from what I saw people use ccache to work around makefile bugs, > >>>>> so they can do make clean; make and have it finish quickly. > >>>>> > >>>>> Any other examples? > >>>> > >>>> Testing configure patches should be done (also) from a clean build > >>>> directory, for example. > >>> > >>> In fact, relying on make clean for testing the build > >>> system is a mistake. It's easy for it to forget to > >>> remove some temporary file. You really should do > >>> a clean clone. > >> > >> Yes, I use a clean clone (and a clean build directory for each patch), > >> _hence_ ccache helps reducing test times. > > > > I see, this workflow is the exact reverse of mine: > > > > I do as much as possible in a single tree so I > > rely on the makefile dependencies to be correct > > to rebuild the right things. > > Usually I do the same---I just do slightly more thorough testing for > configure patches. > > Paolo
I've no idea what happens with ccache on a crash by the way. It's possible that it's careful to do renames in order to not leave corrupted output files behind. -- MST
