On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 18:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Jacob Champion <pchamp...@vmware.com> writes: > > On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 18:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Looks like we'd have to make use of a dummy stamp-file, more or less > > > as attached. Any objections? > > Spitballing -- if you don't like the stamp file, you could add the > > check to the end of the $(shlib) rule, surrounded by an ifeq check. > > Then .DELETE_ON_ERROR should take care of the rest, I think. > > Hmm ... I'd been thinking we don't use .DELETE_ON_ERROR, but on > second look we do, so that could be a plausible approach. > > On balance though, the separate rule seems better, because > .DELETE_ON_ERROR would destroy the evidence about why "nm" > failed, which could be annoying when investigating problems.
Good point. +1 to the stamp approach, then. --Jacob