On 30 March 2015 at 18:34, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 30 March 2015 at 18:10, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> No, it doesn't make sense. Presumably you added it because it fixed a >>> build error? Maybe if you showed what the error was it would make >>> sense. >>> >> Hmm... ok. Can you elaborate if on the scenario mentioned above "one >> may try to "build" nir.h ..." is feasible or a complete BS ? I was >> under the impression that make will not wait for all the BUILT_SOURCES >> to be generated before starting the actual build. Could be wrong >> though :-) > > I don't know what "building nir.h" would mean. nir.h isn't a generated file. > There was some quotes around the word build, which meant "building/compiling a unit (C/CPP file) which includes the header".
> The nir/nir.h: nir/nir_opcodes.h dependency looks entirely bogus. Even > if nir.h was a generated file that included nir_opcodes.h, the > dependence would only matter when compiling something that included > nir.h, and make handles header dependencies. > > But yes, things listed in BUILT_SOURCES are built before the rest of > the build begins. If you specify "SUBDIRS = foo bar ." in a > Makefile.am with BUILT_SOURCES, the BUILT_SOURCES are even built > before recursing into foo and bar. > I see. My understanding behind BUILT_SOURCES was a bit different. Thanks for the patience and explanation gents. -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
