Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I almost suggested using "git.c" as the dummy file, since we know it > must compile anyway. But that probably has other problems (it's more > expensive, and if it _does_ have an error, the results may be > confusing). > > It's a shame we can't just try to do the _real_ compiles using the > auto-dependency stuff, and then fall back if they fail. But I think > there's a chicken-and-egg problem there with "make" doing real work, and > figuring out the dependencies to do real work. Yeah, if compiling any of the real sources is inexpensive enough, I would think that would be the happy way to go. Do we have a trivial source that almost never changes? Perhaps version.c (especially if we kick out two helper functions that do not really belong there)? > ... > I'm happy to submit that on top, or even turn the earlier hunk into a > patch. But let's see what Ævar has to say to what's been discussed so > far. I don't want to derail his effort. Yup.
