Follow-up Comment #7, bug #60595 (project make):
I agree that the following scenario should throw an error, if that's what you
meant:
- 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:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?60595>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
