On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 09:54:06PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > Just to be clear, I would be happy to drop the "oops, the tests barf if > > you recompile halfway through" feature away if it made things more > > robust overall (i.e., if we always did an atomic rename-into-place). I > > just consider it the fact that we do clobber to be an accidental feature > > that is not really worth "fixing". But if we care about "oops, make was > > interrupted and now you have a stale build artifact with a bogus > > timestamp" type of robustness, and "the tests barf" goes away as a side > > effect, I won't complain. > > ..and "this behavior is really annoying on one platform we target, and > the fix is rather trivial". Yeah, that's a fine reason, too. I'm not entirely clear on what the problem is, though, or why this is the best solution (I expect you probably explained it in an earlier thread/series, but if so it went in one ear and out the other on my end). > > That's a pretty big departure from our current Makefile style, though. > > And I don't feel like it buys us a lot. Having a pretty generic and > > typical Makefile is nice for people coming to the project (I have > > noticed that most people are not well versed in "make" arcana). > > I still think just doing "&& mv $@+ $@" is the simplest in this case, we > already have that in a dozen places in the Makefile, I wanted to add it > to a dozen or so more. > > It's a common pattern already, I'd think if anything applying it > uniformly would make things easier to read, even if we didn't get more > portability & the ability to run stuff concurrently when you have "make" > active as bonus. Yeah, and I'm OK with that direction, too. -Peff
