Re: [PATCH 0/4] Makefile fixes

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> writes:
> 
>> Junio, could you tell us what happened to this thread?
>>
>> Makefile improvements.  No discussion.

These had some issues and instead of following up, I simply forgot
about them.

> I took 4/4, and after looking at them again, I think 2/4 looks sensible,
> too.

I also think the patch for 2/4 looks sensible, but the commit message
does not make much sense.  Optimization flags do not affect
compilation of assembler code as far as I can tell.  It would have
made more sense to say something like "Since the only .S file in git
does not have any #ifdefs, leaving the dependency out was mostly
harmless."  (Will resend.)

> I was puzzled by 3/4 and I still am; the dependency rules are the same for
> %.o and %.s yet the patch changes only %.s.  Either it leaves the same
> breakage for %.o (which is much more important in practice), or the
> problem Jonathan has with %.s may have other causes, but it was unclear to
> me.

The Makefile lists dependencies for each .o target elsewhere.  While
cleaning up those other dependency rules, I noticed there was nothing
analogous for the .s targets.  You can reproduce this by running
"make var.o var.s && touch cache.h && make var.o var.s".

Of course, I should have mentioned this in the commit message.  Will
resend as well.  Sorry to leave these standing for so long.

Sincerely,
Jonathan