Jeff Trawick wrote: > 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
CR 6911418 created. > > _______________________________________________ > > > webstack-discuss mailing list > webstack-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/webstack-discuss -- Sunanda Menon Database Technology Group BLR03, x87098/91-80-66937098 http://blogs.sun.com/smenon
