[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: The return of the return of crunch time (2.5 merge candidate list 1.6)
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 12:57:46PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Sunday 27 October 2002 09:20, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > Example problem case (assuming a fs that stores only seconds, and a
> > make that uses nanoseconds):
> >
> > - I run the "save and build" command while editing foo.c at T = 0.1.
> > - foo.o is built at T = 0.2.
> > - I do some read-only operations on foo.c (eg, checkin), such that
> > foo.o gets flushed but foo.c stays in memory.
> > - I build again. foo.o is reloaded and has timestamp T = 0, and so
> > gets spuriously rebuilt.
> If your system, and your disks, are so fast that they can not only finish the
> build in under a second but can also flush the cache and reload it from disk
> in under a second

That is not required. The requirement is that, when the last step
happens (which can be any time in the future), (the inode of) foo.o
has been flushed, and foo.c hasn't. Step 3 argues that this is

> C) How would having ALL times rounded to a second be an improvement?

foo.c and foo.o would both have timestamps of 0. make considers
the target foo.o newer in this case, so will not rebuild it.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.058 / U:1.072 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site