Re: [Boost-build] follow-up to my earlier post

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] follow-up to my earlier post
From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-13 16:46:39

On Sunday 11 April 2010 21:36:37 Ray Lambert wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> A few weeks ago I posted an inquiry regarding the detection of 
> dependency changes during a build, which included a test case that 
> demonstrates the issue.  Here's my original post: 
> <http://lists.boost.org/boost-build/2010/03/23253.php>
> 
> I hate to be a pain but I'm hoping that someone would be able to comment 
> on this.
> 
> I suspect the answer is that this is expected behavior and not easy to 
> fix but confirmation of that would be helpful.  Otherwise, if there's a 
> way to somehow make that test case work that would be quite valuable to me.

Ray,

the caching of timestamp at a random moment during build process is expected.
I don't know what effect such caching has on run-time performance, compared
to calling 'stat' on files as necessary, and this is a code we've inherited
from Perforce Jam. I don't have any high-level reason why this behaviour
should be like that, but probably don't have the time to experiment with
removing it right now either.

Hope this at least clarifies the situation.

--
Vladimir Prus
http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com
Boost.Build: http://boost.org/boost-build2