On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 12:06:56PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 27.10.2020 11:57, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > On 27/10/2020 10:37, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 27.10.2020 11:27, Olaf Hering wrote: > >>> Am Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:16:04 +0100 > >>> schrieb Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>: > >>> > >>>> This pattern is used when a rule consists of multiple commands > >>>> having their output appended to one another's. > >>> My understanding is: a rule is satisfied as soon as the file exists. > >> No - once make has found that a rule's commands need running, it'll > >> run the full set and only check again afterwards. > > > > It stops at the first command which fails. > > > > Olaf is correct, but the problem here is an incremental build issue, not > > a parallel build issue. > > > > Intermediate files must not use the name of the target, or a failure and > > re-build will use the (bogus) intermediate state rather than rebuilding it. > > But there's no intermediate file here - the file gets created in one > go. Furthermore doesn't make delete the target file(s) when a rule > fails? (One may not want to rely on this, and hence indeed keep multi- > part rules update intermediate files of different names.)
What if something went badly enough and sed didn't managed to write the whole file and make never had a chance to remove the bogus file? Surely, this patch is a strict improvement to the build system. Cheers, -- Anthony PERARD
