sunanda menon wrote: > Jeff Trawick wrote: >> Kent Boortz wrote: >>> Jeff Trawick <Jeffrey.Trawick at Sun.COM> writes: >>> >>>> GNU make builds a target when it does not exist or when it is older >>>> than a prerequisite. That's different than what you're suggesting -- >>>> that make rebuilds the target if it is not newer than the >>>> prerequisite. >>>> >>> >>> Hmm, you are so right, and so does most/all other make implementations >>> (being a geek I just verified this on Solaris, HP-UX, AIX.....). >>> >>> Hmm... wonder why I have seen those "sleep" then in other code, >>> maybe they like me did not want to spend time finding out what >>> is "right" and added them thinking "better safe than sorry" ;) >>> >>> So as far as I understand, the "sleep" commands can be removed, >>> >>> kent >>> >>> >>> Running a snippet on a mix of build hosts, they all said "Nothing to >>> do for bar" or "bar is up to date" >>> >>> % do-on-all --cat "cd /tmp; perl -e 'print \"bar: foo\n\techo >>> REBUILD\n\" > Makefile'; touch foo bar; make bar" >>> >> >> Thanks for your follow-up, Kent! >> >> Sunanda, plz update the webrev accordingly and I'll +1. >> >> Thanks all! >> >> > > I'm facing compilation issues on x86 (sparc works)if we remove the > sleep statements and running out on time as well. > Aim was to make it to b131.Will it be OK to leave the changes as is > for now and file a low priority bug to look at this later. > > Please let me know what works.
okay