Re: [PATCH] depcomp and gcc3 still not safe enough

[Raja R Harinath]

Tom Tromey <address@hidden> writes:
> Hari> I don't know if this a GCC bug.  I'm assuming it's not -- it
> Hari> makes sense to clean up if the compile fails; the compiler
> Hari> doesn't provide rollback for -o, why should it provide rollback
> Hari> for -MF.
> 
> Dependency files are different from .o files though.
> It would make sense to write a temporary dependency file and then `mv'
> it on success (or `rm' on failure).

But, does 'gcc' have to do it?  There are valid usage modes (use
sinclude/-include) which don't require the "save to temp and move"
method.  In fact, it may even be confusing for some uses.

- Hari
-- 
Raja R Harinath ------------------------------ address@hidden
"When all else fails, read the instructions."      -- Cahn's Axiom
"Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing."   -- Roy L Ash