"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Quoting Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>: >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix parallel make problem >> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> +.PRECIOUS: $(patsubst test-%$X,test-%.o,$(TEST_PROGRAMS)) >> >> + >> >> test-%$X: test-%.o $(GITLIBS) >> >> $(QUIET_LINK)$(CC) $(ALL_CFLAGS) -o $@ $(ALL_LDFLAGS) $(filter %.o,$^) $(LIBS) >> > >> > Add a comment here? >> >> I did not see a particular need for that. What would you say >> there? > > That it's a work-around for make bug. I would agree it is a make bug to barf like what we saw. Even though we allowed it to treat test-%.o files as intermediate products and allowed them to be removed, it is not a good excuse for make to forget rebuilding them. But I also happen to think not marking test-%.o as precious was a bug on our side. We would want to keep the build by-product to avoid recompilation, don't we? And this additional line is primarily about fixing that bug, which works the bug around as a side effect. > So how did this end up in your mail? Because it is not a format-patch output. I often run "git diff --stat -p HEAD" from inside MUA in order to get the patch from my work tree, write a proposed commit message, and then reset the change away without committing after sending that message (yes I do not need "git stash" --- gmane and vger are my stashes, Mwhhhaaaa). - 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
