public inbox for goredo-devel@lists.stargrave.org
Atom feed
From: Sergey Matveev <stargrave@stargrave•org>
To: goredo-devel@lists.cypherpunks.su
Subject: Re: Potentially unnecessary redoing of targets
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 11:23:00 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aWYBE0y0ckZ3n-qw@stargrave.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <31027652-a2af-4ab5-b7cc-4037f5692e10@jnboehm.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 971 bytes --]

Greetings!

*** Niklas Böhm [2026-01-12 16:12]:
>What I would suggest is to check, once more, if the targets
>actually did change their content before launching `2.do`.

redo just do not work that way. If it determines that "2" is
OOD (because it depends on "1", that depends on altered "1.do"),
then it runs 2.do. It does not run 1.do, but 2.do, that *may*
run 1.do. Even if we saw that result of "1" target was not
changed, we already executing 2.do anyway, maybe somewhere in
the middle of its code, with various steps already done before
encountering "redo-ifchange 1" in it.

spacefrogg perfectly explained all of that (and other issues,
like premature "1.do" execution) in details indeed.

Here is the crucial difference in behaviour between Make and
redo: Make, if 2 is OOD, will run 1(.do). Redo will run 2.do,
that may run 1.do.

-- 
Sergey Matveev (http://www.stargrave.org/)
LibrePGP: 12AD 3268 9C66 0D42 6967  FD75 CB82 0563 2107 AD8A

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 265 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-01-13  8:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-12  9:02 Potentially unnecessary redoing of targets Niklas Böhm
2026-01-12 12:53 ` spacefrogg
2026-01-12 15:12   ` Niklas Böhm
2026-01-12 16:26     ` spacefrogg
2026-01-13  8:23     ` Sergey Matveev [this message]
2026-01-13 19:04       ` Niklas Böhm