Mike Shal <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > I think a 'make --audit' would definitely be a step in the right > direction. That alone would probably have saved me many days of > frustration when I have to use make. I would still have issues with > the lack of scalability, so for me it would not be so useful. I do > think direct auditing would be better than the indirect prerequisite > re-ordering approach, though. I just imagine waiting for an hour long > build to complete some N-factorial times, and at the end you still > have no idea if it is actually safe.
I wouldn't see it that way: At the moment, when you run the hour-long build N-factorial times, you do not get /any/ idea if it will run in parallel as well. So prerequisite re-or- dering would certainly increase the level of reliability. On the other hand I don't share your concern about abso- lute "safe" build system dependencies in the first place. For example, in 2009 PostgreSQL had no test coverage for about a quarter of its code (and even then, "covered" doesn't necessarily mean "correct"). Bugs in the build sys- tem dependencies are usually a mere nuisance. Tim _______________________________________________ Help-make mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
