Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix full dependencies that should be order only in ninja backend #13377

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dcbaker
Copy link
Member

@dcbaker dcbaker commented Jul 1, 2024

The current terminology is odd, it calls them "header deps" and "order deps", but headers are only order deps, and order deps are full dependencies. This renames and fixes the kind of dependencies being used.

@dcbaker dcbaker added the backend:ninja Specific to the ninja backend label Jul 1, 2024
@dcbaker dcbaker requested a review from jpakkane as a code owner July 1, 2024 20:06
@dcbaker dcbaker force-pushed the submit/ninja-backend-order-only-fixes branch from 3897d7d to 4013ad3 Compare July 9, 2024 17:51
@dcbaker dcbaker force-pushed the submit/ninja-backend-order-only-fixes branch from 4013ad3 to b97501d Compare July 16, 2024 16:14
@dcbaker dcbaker force-pushed the submit/ninja-backend-order-only-fixes branch from b97501d to 3e24341 Compare October 1, 2024 15:53
Copy link
Member

@bruchar1 bruchar1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the third commit message could be a little more explicit. Like "refactored by adding a add_order_deps function", or something like that.

mesonbuild/backend/ninjabackend.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
header dependency are usually order-only, but this actually provides a
full dependency.
Due to the confusing naming of the parameters, a number of arguments
were incorrectly added as full dependencies when they should be order
only.
@dcbaker dcbaker force-pushed the submit/ninja-backend-order-only-fixes branch from 3e24341 to c6963bb Compare October 1, 2024 18:14
@dcbaker
Copy link
Member Author

dcbaker commented Oct 1, 2024

@bruchar1 done and done. Thanks for the review :)

Copy link
Member

@bruchar1 bruchar1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! Should it be added to the next point release?

@dcbaker
Copy link
Member Author

dcbaker commented Oct 1, 2024

Should it be added to the next point release?

I don't think so. This change potentially makes re-compiles faster when using generated headers, but it doesn't affect the correctness of the build

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backend:ninja Specific to the ninja backend
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants