Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Making module versions (Was: OFFTOPIC: binary modules, bad idea!) | From | Raja R Harinath <> | Date | 20 Dec 1997 15:05:41 -0600 |
| |
Martin von Loewis <martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de> writes: > One-liners don't answer anything. If I just keep the .tmp around, > make will still remake foo.ver, because it is still older than foo.c > > Linux-Kernel Mail Account wrote: > > Use a cp-if-changed then, keep the .tmp around to prevent that... > > > > On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Martin von Loewis wrote: > > > > > > I'm not sure if I'm reading this right but, would a mv_if_changed not do > > > > the job? Ignoring the date and running a diff on the file... > > > > > > Exactly. If you have a rule saying > > > > > > foo.ver: foo.c > > > produce foo.ver.tmp > > > mv-if-changed foo.ver.tmp foo.ver > > > > > > then you are in trouble if foo.c is newer than foo.ver, but foo.ver > > > is not updated. It will produce foo.ver.tmp every time you invoke make.
I guess he meant:
- make foo.ver.tmp depend on foo.c - use cp-if-changed to get foo.ver - things that depend on foo.ver still depend on it
To pull this off, foo.ver.tmp and foo.ver may have to be handled by different make invocations.
- Hari -- Raja R Harinath ------------------------------ harinath@cs.umn.edu "When all else fails, read the instructions." -- Cahn's Axiom "Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing." -- Roy L Ash
| |