On 9/25/14, 10:47 AM, Cliff wrote:
On Thursday, 25 September 2014 at 17:42:09 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2014-09-25 16:23, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
That's the hallmark of make-based projects.
This was Ninja actually. But how would the build system know I've
updated the compiler?
The compiler is an input to the build rule. Consider the rule:
build: $(CC) my.c -o my.o
what are the dependencies for the rule "build"?
my.c obviously. Anything the compiler accesses during the
compilation of my.c. And *the compiler itself*, referenced here
as $(CC). From a dependency management standpoint, executables
are not special except as running them leads to the discovery of
more dependencies than may be statically specified.
Yah, it only gets odder from there. E.g. all stuff being build must also
list the rule file itself as a dependency.
FWIW I've seen implications that a better build tool would improve the
lot of dlang contributors. My response to that would be: I agree that
Phobos' posix.mak
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/blob/master/posix.mak)
is a tad baroque and uses a couple of the more obscure features of make.
I also consider a few changes to it could have been effected simpler and
better. However, as far as I can tell it's not a large issue for dlang
contributors, and to the extent it is, it's not because of make's faults.
Andrei
