Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

On 07/21/11 23:14, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > I'm sure recovering 3 minutes of needless compilation will > be quite a win, at a cost of a couple of additional recipes If the only cost were two small make rules, that would indeed be a win. I worry the cost will be larger than that. But please feel fre

Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:00:50 -0700 > From: Paul Eggert > CC: 9...@debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnulib@gnu.org, > Eli Zaretskii > > [...] if the benefit is large enough relative to the cost (something > that's not clear to me). People complain about bzr operations that take 15 seconds where git t

Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

Bruno Haible wrote: > Paul, Jim, Eric, others, do you remember other problems of stamp files? > >> The config.h rule (among others) has been using one for years, >> and the last time I've heard complaints or bug reports about it >> has been years also. > > For reference, here's the rules automake g

Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

On 07/21/11 14:27, Bruno Haible wrote: > What are, concretely, the problems you are fearing, or that you remember > from the past? In other words, which are the tests that we should perform > before committing a change that makes use of stamp files? Your earlier message summarized the problems tha

Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

Paul Eggert wrote: > Like you, I'm leery of time stamp files; too often > their costs outweigh their benefits. What are, concretely, the problems you are fearing, or that you remember from the past? In other words, which are the tests that we should perform before committing a change that makes us

Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

On 07/21/11 03:57, Bruno Haible wrote: > Is that the kind of rule you would recommend? Yes, something like that might work, for config.status in Emacs. But I'd rather not debug this sort of thing myself. Like you, I'm leery of time stamp files; too often their costs outweigh their benefits.

Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

Hi Ralf, > I guess I don't understand why everyone hates stamp files. I don't like them either [1], from past experience. Maybe we need to look at the operations that are hurt by stamp files: - Building distributions. If stamp files are included in a tarball, then merely unpacking the tar

Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

* Eli Zaretskii wrote on Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 07:51:08PM CEST: > > Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:23:32 -0700 > > From: Paul Eggert > > CC: Ralf Wildenhues , 9...@debbugs.gnu.org, > > bug-gnulib@gnu.org > > > > On 07/20/11 01:48, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > >> You need a separate stamp file to avoid th

Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

On 07/20/11 01:48, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> You need a separate stamp file to avoid this. > Or use move-if-change with config.status. That might be better, but it'd need a separate timestamp file, no? Otherwise, config.status would appear out-of-date to the top-level rule that runs 'configure', and

Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:23:32 -0700 > From: Paul Eggert > CC: Ralf Wildenhues , 9...@debbugs.gnu.org, > bug-gnulib@gnu.org > > On 07/20/11 01:48, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> You need a separate stamp file to avoid this. > > Or use move-if-change with config.status. > > That might be better,

Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

> Cc: egg...@cs.ucla.edu, 9...@debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnulib@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:46:23 +0200 > From: "Ralf Wildenhues" > > I think you are. Once config.status is updated, the .h files' rules > are triggered, but since move-if-change never updates identical outputs > they will be tr

Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

* Eli Zaretskii wrote on Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 08:38:24AM CEST: > > > I'm afraid this cure would be worse than the disease. > > > > I feel there's some kind of misunderstanding here, because with my > > proposal, nothing will happen that doesn't already happen. Perhaps > > you could show in more d

Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

Hello, * Eli Zaretskii wrote on Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 08:29:38AM CEST: > > From: Paul Eggert > > > And this would occur every time one does a 'make', even when there's > > no real work to do. > > This occurs already: these headers are regenerated every time I re-run > the `configure' script. Ye

Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:29:38 -0400 > From: Eli Zaretskii > Cc: 9...@debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnulib@gnu.org > > > The unnecessary "make" actions would fill up people's screens, > > and would be confusing. > > They fill up my screen already, as things are now. > > > I'm afraid this cure would b

Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:58:48 -0700 > From: Paul Eggert > CC: 9...@debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnulib@gnu.org > > On 07/19/2011 10:24 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > What I'm suggesting is to replace the last command ("mv $@-t $@") with > > this: > > > > move-if-change $@-t $@ > > > > That's it.

Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

On 07/19/2011 10:24 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: What I'm suggesting is to replace the last command ("mv $@-t $@") with this: move-if-change $@-t $@ That's it. Make will indeed cheerfully regenerate unistd.h-t ... and alloca.h-t. And getopt.h-t. And the other ten .h-t files that are gener

Re: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation

> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:39:38 -0700 > From: Paul Eggert > Cc: bug-gnulib > > [cc'ing bug-gnulib as it's related; see > ] > > > It used to be the case that if the results of running `configure' > > didn't change anything of essence, "make"