%% Boris Kolpackov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
bk> Yes it does. It's not clear to me whether it's good or bad, though.
bk> I don't see how "result depends on how we got here" type of logic
bk> is of any usefulness especially in the context of make (read "build
bk> reproducibility").
bk>
Paul,
Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I disagree, actually. It's a settled feature of make that the DAG is
> not a simple tree: that there can be more than one pathway to a given
> target in the DAG.
>
> The placement of the .WAIT prerequisite implies a relationship between
> two pre
%% Boris Kolpackov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The rules I mentioned in this list apply only between the two
>> prerequisites listed, in that pathway. If the "waited for" prerequisite
>> appears on any other path where it is not waited for, then it's fair
>> game for parallelization.
Paul,
Sorry, it took me a while to reply. My comments are below.
Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The rules I mentioned in this list apply only between the two
> prerequisites listed, in that pathway. If the "waited for" prerequisite
> appears on any other path where it is not waited
Paul,
Didn't you get that backwards?
Shouldn't it be that bar and its prerequistes are built after foo and
all its prerequisites?
Reid
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul D. Smith
>
> I think the goal of this:
>
> all: foo .WAIT bar
> From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul D. Smith
>> all: foo .WAIT bar
>>
>> foo: baz biz
>> bar: boz booz
>> would be that neither foo NOR any of its prerequisites would
>> be built until bar and all if its prerequisites were finished.
%% [EMAIL PROTECTED
Whoops, no I'm wrong.
The thing about order-only is it applies only to the top-level targets:
all: foo | bar
foo: baz biz
bar: boz booz
Here, foo will not be run until after "bar" is done. BUT, biz, baz,
boz, and booz can still all be run in parallel.
I think the goal of this:
(I don't think Reid is subscribed to the list so I added him back)
%% Boris Kolpackov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
bk> What happens if I have this makefile:
bk> foo: bar .WAIT baz
bk> fox: bar baz
Using my rules, bar and baz are built in parallel.
bk> When I say 'make fox' is serializa
"Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> rm> I'll admit that the processing of :: targets is a gray area, and
> rm> the .WAIT approach is the clearest solution.
>
> Well, clear_ER_ anyway.
There was a discussion on the idea of .WAIT some time ago on the help-make
mailing list (Subject: "
I'm throwing this out to the mailing list, too, since most folks don't
regularly read through bug reports :-).
%% Reid Madsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
rm> Follow-up Comment #4, bug #13976 (project make):
rm> I'll admit that the processing of :: targets is a gray area, and
rm> the .WAIT
10 matches
Mail list logo
