Re: The return of the return of crunch time (2.5 merge candidate list 1.6)

[Rob Landley <landley@trommello.org>]

On Sunday 27 October 2002 09:20, Andrew Pimlott wrote:

> Example problem case (assuming a fs that stores only seconds, and a
> make that uses nanoseconds):
>
> - I run the "save and build" command while editing foo.c at T = 0.1.
> - foo.o is built at T = 0.2.
> - I do some read-only operations on foo.c (eg, checkin), such that
>   foo.o gets flushed but foo.c stays in memory.
> - I build again.  foo.o is reloaded and has timestamp T = 0, and so
>   gets spuriously rebuilt.

If your system, and your disks, are so fast that they can not only finish the 
build in under a second but can also flush the cache and reload it from disk 
in under a second, then:

A) the spurious rebuild is still a tiny fraction of a second.
B) You're seeing a penalty for using a filesystem that's too old for your 
setup.  This is a configuration problem in userspace.
C) How would having ALL times rounded to a second be an improvement?

Rob

-- 
http://penguicon.sf.net - Terry Pratchett, Eric Raymond, Pete Abrams, Illiad, 
CmdrTaco, liquid nitrogen ice cream, and caffienated jello.  Well why not?