%% Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The fix we had for g->changed was actually broken and caused many of the
>> regression tests to fail, so I fixed it.
ez> Can you please elaborate? how was it broken?
ez> All I see when I compare my patched remake.c and the one that's in
ez> CVS is that you replaced the assignment of g->changed with an
ez> equivalent if clause. What am I missing?
It wasn't equivalent. Compare the:
if (foo > bar)
changed = 1;
with
changed = (foo > bar);
Now consider what happens in both cases if changed == 1 before these
statements run, and (foo <= bar)...
In the first case changed will still be 1, which is what we want.
In the second case, changed will now be 0 ... Doh!
Remember the original was:
changed += (foo - bar);
which cannot set "changed" back to 0 (except for an overflow, which is
what we were trying to avoid).
Cheers!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at:
http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
_______________________________________________
Make-w32 mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
