On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 01:02:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 12.05.17 at 18:20, <wei.l...@citrix.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:52:54AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> The rule for headers++.chk wants to move headers++.chk.new to the > >> designated target, which means we have to create that file in the first > >> place. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> > > Thanks. > > > If I were to fix it I would just skip the check altogether if CXX isn't > > available. But this approach is fine, too. > > I may not be understanding what you mean: The test is being skipped; > the destination file is being touched so that on an incremental re-build > the rule wouldn't be re-run. What else are you imagining? Suppressing > the headers++.chk target altogether would likely be more code churn,
Yes that's what I was thinking. But as you said it's going to be more code churn. Wei. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel