Using hash instead of timestamps to check for changes.

2015-03-27 Thread Glen Stark
Greetings. I hope that this is the correct forum for this question. As a quick search on Google will verify, there's quite a bit of interest in being able to have Make use a hash to check if a new build is required, as opposed to a timestamp. I searched the mailing lists regarding this issue, an

Re: Using hash instead of timestamps to check for changes.

2015-03-27 Thread Yukimasa Sugizaki
Hi. Notice that I am not a GNU Make developer. The feature which checks updates depend on file content differ of each file is not implemented on GNU Make currently. (I think it won't be implemented because timestamp-based update checking is normal behavior of Make.) If you want to check update

Re: Using hash instead of timestamps to check for changes.

2015-03-27 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 14:42 +0100, Glen Stark wrote: > Is this planned? Has the idea already been rejected, and if so could > you point me to the discussion so I can inform myself? There is no formal planning around it right now, and it's not at the top of my TODO list for GNU make. > If it is p

Re: Using hash instead of timestamps to check for changes.

2015-03-27 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 11:45 -0400, Paul Smith wrote: > * Do we really need to hash the file? Maybe simply expanding the > current checking is sufficient. For example, if in addition to > mod time we also considered the size of the file (and maybe > other things maint