Junio C Hamano wrote: > Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Junio, could you tell us what happened to this thread? >> >> Makefile improvements. No discussion. These had some issues and instead of following up, I simply forgot about them. > I took 4/4, and after looking at them again, I think 2/4 looks sensible, > too. I also think the patch for 2/4 looks sensible, but the commit message does not make much sense. Optimization flags do not affect compilation of assembler code as far as I can tell. It would have made more sense to say something like "Since the only .S file in git does not have any #ifdefs, leaving the dependency out was mostly harmless." (Will resend.) > I was puzzled by 3/4 and I still am; the dependency rules are the same for > %.o and %.s yet the patch changes only %.s. Either it leaves the same > breakage for %.o (which is much more important in practice), or the > problem Jonathan has with %.s may have other causes, but it was unclear to > me. The Makefile lists dependencies for each .o target elsewhere. While cleaning up those other dependency rules, I noticed there was nothing analogous for the .s targets. You can reproduce this by running "make var.o var.s && touch cache.h && make var.o var.s". Of course, I should have mentioned this in the commit message. Will resend as well. Sorry to leave these standing for so long. Sincerely, Jonathan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html