[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cost of -MP
From: |
Boris Kolpackov |
Subject: |
Re: cost of -MP |
Date: |
Fri, 28 May 2004 10:20:07 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6i |
Noel Yap <address@hidden> writes:
> Sorry for the confusion and for inadvertently implying you were stupid.
I was just joking ;-)
> Currently, are the dependencies files regenerated due to a "-include", or
> as part of the object file being built?
The latter.
> When you say "re-exec", do you mean a re-exec due to an included makefile
> being rebuilt? Or due to make recursively calling itself?
The latter again. All those re-execs are done explicitly via "make -C ...".
> Can you elaborate on what you mean by "up-to-date build" below?
It means that everything is up-to-date. When you run make on such a build
no files change and make happily says that nothing needs to be done. That's
what you usually get when you run make second time on the same build.
-boris
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: cost of -MP, (continued)
- Re: cost of -MP, Noel Yap, 2004/05/27
- Re: cost of -MP, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/05/27
- Re: cost of -MP, Noel Yap, 2004/05/27
- Re: cost of -MP, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/05/27
- Re: cost of -MP, Noel Yap, 2004/05/27
- Re: cost of -MP, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/05/27
- Re: cost of -MP, Noel Yap, 2004/05/29
- Re: cost of -MP, Noel Yap, 2004/05/28
- Re: cost of -MP, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/05/28
- Re: cost of -MP, Noel Yap, 2004/05/28
- Re: cost of -MP,
Boris Kolpackov <=
- Re: cost of -MP, Noel Yap, 2004/05/29
- Re: cost of -MP, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/05/28
- Re: cost of -MP, Noel Yap, 2004/05/28