> "Hari" == Raja R Harinath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Dependency files are different from .o files though. It would make
>> sense to write a temporary dependency file and then `mv' it on
>> success (or `rm' on failure).
Hari> But, does 'gcc' have to do it? There are valid usage modes
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hari> I don't know if this a GCC bug. I'm assuming it's not -- it
> Hari> makes sense to clean up if the compile fails; the compiler
> Hari> doesn't provide rollback for -o, why should it provide rollback
> Hari> for -MF.
>
> Dependency files are differen
> "Hari" == Raja R Harinath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hari> GCC 3.0 doesn't still exactly implement exactly what 'depcomp'
Hari> wants.
Bummer.
Hari> I don't know if this a GCC bug. I'm assuming it's not -- it
Hari> makes sense to clean up if the compile fails; the compiler
Hari> doesn't
Hi,
Raja R Harinath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> GCC 3.0 doesn't still exactly implement exactly what 'depcomp' wants.
>
> The problem is that if the compile fails, the file specified to -MF is
> deleted too. With 'gcc -MF $depfile', $depfile is deleted. But,
> $depfile is eventually included
Hi,
GCC 3.0 doesn't still exactly implement exactly what 'depcomp' wants.
The problem is that if the compile fails, the file specified to -MF is
deleted too. With 'gcc -MF $depfile', $depfile is deleted. But,
$depfile is eventually included by the Makefile -- so subsequent
'make' invocations w
