https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93548
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93548
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93548
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:492c63e5b72c3497160e2c2e113fb91644b3570e
commit r10-6407-g492c63e5b72c3497160e2c2e113fb91644b3570e
Author: Richard Earnshaw
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93548
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93548
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Won't this invoke it all the time if the timestamp of the generated files is
older than timestamp of the sources from which it is generated?
Which was the reason I've used stamp files in the #c5 patch simila
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93548
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw ---
I don't think so, since the write back will update the timestamp. It would
only rerun it once per make anyway.
Also, the timestamp approach is really designed for files in the build area,
not those in
