On Sat, 2022-05-21 at 14:34 -0400, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 12:25 PM Paul Smith wrote:
> > Maybe what you're saying is that make should throw an error or
> > warning if you try to add an order-only prerequisite to a phony
> > target, telling you that it will have no
On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 12:25 PM Paul Smith wrote:
> Maybe what you're saying is that make should throw an error or warning
> if you try to add an order-only prerequisite to a phony target, telling
> you that it will have no effect on your makefile?
Having a phony target depend (usually
Hi Paul and Jacob,
On 5/21/22 18:24, Paul Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2022-05-18 at 14:36 -0700, Jacob Kopczynski wrote:
The thing that the docs refer to as "impose order" is not a single
thing, but two. I would characterize a normal prerequisite as doing
three things rather than two:
-
On Sat, 2022-05-21 at 19:06 +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> By "once all children are complete" you are implying the "existence"
> of the children (which make(1) doesn't really check, but one can
> think of it as if it did).
Perhaps that's the confusion. Make doesn't care about files at all
On Wed, 2022-05-18 at 14:36 -0700, Jacob Kopczynski wrote:
> The thing that the docs refer to as "impose order" is not a single
> thing, but two. I would characterize a normal prerequisite as doing
> three things rather than two:
> - update-marking: cause a target to be marked out of date if the
>
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 5:37 PM Jacob Kopczynski
wrote:
>> - it might make sense to state explicitly that order-only prereqs
>> which are phony behave in all ways like standard prerequisites.
This statement is simply incorrect.
Order-only prerequisites which are phony do not behave like
The thing that the docs refer to as "impose order" is not a single thing,
but two. I would characterize a normal prerequisite as doing three things
rather than two:
- *update-marking: *cause a target to be marked out of date if the prereq
is marked out of date
- *require-existence: *require the
On Wed, 2022-05-18 at 10:22 -0700, Jacob Kopczynski wrote:
> I believe I understand. The name "order-only" is highly misleading
> and should be changed - it does considerably more than "only"
> "order"; the only thing it does not do is check the timestamp.
As described in the docs there are only
I believe I understand. The name "order-only" is highly misleading and
should be changed - it does considerably more than "only" "order"; the only
thing it does not do is check the timestamp. This portion of the
documentation *particularly* needs changing:
> Occasionally, however, you have a
On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 22:32 +, Martin Dorey wrote:
> > all your targets are .PHONY, and thus are always rebuilt anyway
>
> If you "make down", the rule for "down-clean" doesn't run. They're
> only rebuilt if something causes them to be considered.
>
> > order-only prerequisites are
2 14:20
To: Jacob Kopczynski ; bug-make@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Potential Bug: `.PHONY` targets and order-only prerequisites
* EXTERNAL EMAIL *
On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 14:00 -0700, Jacob Kopczynski wrote:
> I'm unsure whether this is a bug or just undocumented, but I found a
> con
On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 17:20 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> this says two things: first, that b and c will both be rebuilt (if
> necessary) before a's recipe is started,
I guess I should be more clear about the "(if necessary)". What I mean
is the same as if you had run "make b" or "make c" and make
On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 14:00 -0700, Jacob Kopczynski wrote:
> I'm unsure whether this is a bug or just undocumented, but I found a
> confusing interaction in a simple Makefile:
You are misreading the documentation. I will quote:
> A normal prerequisite makes two statements: first, it imposes an
I'm unsure whether this is a bug or just undocumented, but I found a
confusing interaction in a simple Makefile:
> .PHONY: up
> up: down | down-clean
> docker-compose up -d
> .PHONY: up-clean
> up-clean: down-clean up
> .PHONY: down
> down:
> docker-compose down
> .PHONY: down-clean
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
