Re: Trigger missing dependencies by changing order of execution?

[Tim Landscheidt]

Mike Shal <address@hidden> wrote:

> [...]
> I think a 'make --audit' would definitely be a step in the right
> direction. That alone would probably have saved me many days of
> frustration when I have to use make. I would still have issues with
> the lack of scalability, so for me it would not be so useful. I do
> think direct auditing would be better than the indirect prerequisite
> re-ordering approach, though. I just imagine waiting for an hour long
> build to complete some N-factorial times, and at the end you still
> have no idea if it is actually safe.

I wouldn't see it that way: At the moment, when you run the
hour-long build N-factorial times, you do not get /any/ idea
if it will run in parallel as well.  So prerequisite re-or-
dering would certainly increase the level of reliability.

  On the other hand I don't share your concern about abso-
lute "safe" build system dependencies in the first place.
For example, in 2009 PostgreSQL had no test coverage for
about a quarter of its code (and even then, "covered"
doesn't necessarily mean "correct").  Bugs in the build sys-
tem dependencies are usually a mere nuisance.

Tim