On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> This is definitely not per make's contract, either. I think maybe the
>>> "Don't rebuild the list if only the OBJS have changed" hack in common.mk
>>> is a brick or tw
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is definitely not per make's contract, either. I think maybe the
>> "Don't rebuild the list if only the OBJS have changed" hack in common.mk
>> is a brick or two shy of a load, but I don't know how to fix that.
> I f
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Now perhaps this is not make's fault so much as a lack of adequate
>> dependency specifications. It may be that we can still use .SECONDARY
>> if we add the $(OBJS) lists as explicit targets of "make all" in backend
>> directories, bu
I wrote:
> Now perhaps this is not make's fault so much as a lack of adequate
> dependency specifications. It may be that we can still use .SECONDARY
> if we add the $(OBJS) lists as explicit targets of "make all" in backend
> directories, but I'm not sure how invasive that would be.
I experiment
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I suppose that you are not using automatic dependency mode, so you are
> seeing the change just now with the recent introduction of global
> .SECONDARY.
True.
> This is working correctly, as far as make is concerned. There is no
> configuration knob in make that says,
On 12/17/12 8:46 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 12/15/12 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> =?iso-8859-15?q?C=E9dric_Villemain?= writes:
>>> Le vendredi 14 décembre 2012 23:02:11, Tom Lane a écrit :
$ rm gram.o
rm: remove regular file `gram.o'? y
$ make
make: Nothing to be done for
=?iso-8859-15?q?C=E9dric_Villemain?= writes:
> Le lundi 17 décembre 2012 17:42:04, Tom Lane a écrit :
>> Well, it's behaving as documented, but what this means is we need to be
>> very wary of what contexts we can use .SECONDARY in. I'd just as soon
>> try to avoid using it at all --- my example
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Cédric Villemain
wrote:
>
> That's not so obvious.
> The current behavior is expected by .SECONDARY.
> In other words, if I just 'touch rewriteDefine.c' then rewriteDefine.o will be
> rebuilt by make (as expected).
>
> $ touch rewriteDefine.c
> $ make
> gcc -O2 -
Le lundi 17 décembre 2012 17:42:04, Tom Lane a écrit :
> =?iso-8859-15?q?C=E9dric_Villemain?= writes:
> > Le lundi 17 décembre 2012 16:45:16, Tom Lane a écrit :
> >> Having seen this, I now think .SECONDARY is broken across the board.
> >
> > make does what it is supposed to do here IIUC.
>
> We
Le lundi 17 décembre 2012 15:29:09, Andrew Dunstan a écrit :
> On 12/17/2012 08:46 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 12/15/12 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> =?iso-8859-15?q?C=E9dric_Villemain?= writes:
> >>> Le vendredi 14 décembre 2012 23:02:11, Tom Lane a écrit :
> $ rm gram.o
> rm: r
=?iso-8859-15?q?C=E9dric_Villemain?= writes:
> Le lundi 17 décembre 2012 16:45:16, Tom Lane a écrit :
>> Having seen this, I now think .SECONDARY is broken across the board.
> make does what it is supposed to do here IIUC.
Well, it's behaving as documented, but what this means is we need to be
v
Le lundi 17 décembre 2012 16:45:16, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Pavan Deolasee writes:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> If you
> >> want to rebuild postgres, run make in src/backend, and analyze.o (or
> >> whatever) will be rebuilt.
> >
> > FWIW for me, make in src/back
Pavan Deolasee writes:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> If you
>> want to rebuild postgres, run make in src/backend, and analyze.o (or
>> whatever) will be rebuilt.
> FWIW for me, make in src/backend fails with this:
> i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2: parser/analyze
On 12/17/2012 08:46 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 12/15/12 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
=?iso-8859-15?q?C=E9dric_Villemain?= writes:
Le vendredi 14 décembre 2012 23:02:11, Tom Lane a écrit :
$ rm gram.o
rm: remove regular file `gram.o'? y
$ make
make: Nothing to be done for `all'.
WTF?
A pre
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> If you
> want to rebuild postgres, run make in src/backend, and analyze.o (or
> whatever) will be rebuilt.
FWIW for me, make in src/backend fails with this:
i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2: parser/analyze.o: No such file or directory
ma
On 12/15/12 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?iso-8859-15?q?C=E9dric_Villemain?= writes:
>> Le vendredi 14 décembre 2012 23:02:11, Tom Lane a écrit :
>>> $ rm gram.o
>>> rm: remove regular file `gram.o'? y
>>> $ make
>>> make: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>
>>> WTF?
>
>> A previous patch changed t
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Pavan Deolasee
wrote:
>
> "When a file is secondary, make will not create the file merely
> because it does not already exist, but make does not automatically
> delete the file."
> (link:
> ftp://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/make-3.79.1/html_chapter/make_10.html#
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?iso-8859-15?q?C=E9dric_Villemain?= writes:
>> Le vendredi 14 décembre 2012 23:02:11, Tom Lane a écrit :
>>> $ rm gram.o
>>> rm: remove regular file `gram.o'? y
>>> $ make
>>> make: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>
>>> WTF?
>
>> A previous patc
=?iso-8859-15?q?C=E9dric_Villemain?= writes:
> Le vendredi 14 décembre 2012 23:02:11, Tom Lane a écrit :
>> $ rm gram.o
>> rm: remove regular file `gram.o'? y
>> $ make
>> make: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>
>> WTF?
> A previous patch changed the ".SECONDARY" from an if() section to the main
Le vendredi 14 décembre 2012 23:02:11, Tom Lane a écrit :
> In a fully-built source tree:
>
> $ cd pgsql/src/backend/parser
> $ make
> make: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> ... okay so far ...
> $ rm gram.o
> rm: remove regular file `gram.o'? y
> $ make
> make: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>
> W
20 matches
Mail list logo
