Follow-up Comment #7, bug #60595 (project make):

I agree that the following scenario should throw an error, if that's what you

- a makefile _should_ have been read in AND
- such makefile _could not_ be read in (e.g. does not exist) AND
- make has finished rebuilding all makefiles AND
- make has determined that it _does not need to re-exec_.

I don't understand why make doesn't do that today, as shown by your simple
repro case (and by my real makefile when "include" is in the wrong order).
Maybe it's a separate bug?

Just clear up on something: in my opinion fixing _this_ bug alone wouldn't
increase occurrences of this error, because it will only trigger more
re-execs, never fewer. I say this because in your line below I got the
impression that you meant that fixing this bug alone will automatically start
triggering the error:

> As a note when we do fix this problem the above makefile will fail on the
"include" line after the restart because the rule that says it built m2.d
actually didn't.


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via Savannah

Reply via email to