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:
> 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:
> 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.
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
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk