3 ms·
Good point. I have to say I'm wary of that, recursive make is not a good idea, and the problem can't be fixed by building a better make, because the issue is th
by dale_glass 4y ago
Good point. I have to say I'm wary of that, recursive make is not a good idea, and the problem can't be fixed by building a better make, because the issue is that it breaks up the dependency graph and creates build problems.
Eg, if you have src/lib, and src/bin, and the src/bin project depends on the src/lib library, then in self-contained, recursively invoked makefiles (or anything else), you won't get a correct behavior when a header in the library changes.
- aidenn0 4y agoOther make replacements have solved this by making the dependency graph independent of the file structure. Hopefully beast does this too
- dale_glass 4y agoWhat do you mean? make has no particular requirements regarding the file structure. You can write a single giant Makefile covering a directory tree with thousands of source files in various directories.
- aidenn0 4y agoI meant independent of the (make-replacement)file structure. As long as the dependency graph isn't restricted to a single build file, then most of the inherent issues with recursive make are avoided.