On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 07:25:17AM +0200, Arthur Bergman wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:53:22PM +0200, Arthur Bergman wrote:
> > > I would suggest that smoke scripts all do make regen_headers before smoking not
>to report trivial header file mixups. Or because you got a snapshot inbetween a patch
>and a make regen_header submit to the repository.
> >
> > Aren't the targets in the Makefile supposed to ensure that headers get
> > regenerated in the case where they are out of date w.r.t. the scripts that
> > generate them?
>
> That might be the case, but we still need to do a make regen_headers and submit
>these into the source repository. And taken from the emails it doesn't seem to do
>that for people.
I wasn't convinced that it was regen_headers failing.
However, one way to test this is to explicity make the target and see if
there is still a problem :-)
> > If the current dependencies can't always detect the need to make
> > regen_headers, can we fix them rather than working round it in the smoke
> > test?
>
> Indeed that would be a good solution. However I can see potential problems with the
>dates getting mixedup on downloads.
Agree
> I still would like to smoke script to a make regen_headers; make; make test; since
>catching the fact that the headers haven't been checked into p4 isn't realy what
>smokers are for.
Definitely agree.
will `make regen_headers perl`
work as well as `make regen_headers` `make perl`
?
Or is the CPU saved for 32 invocations of make negligible even on platforms
such as Windows where new processes are expensive?
Nicholas Clark
PS If the tone of my messages to various lists last night sounded like I
was in a bad mood, they were deceptive. I wasn't.
