高增琦 <pgf00a@gmail.com> writes: > I very much look forward to hearing everyone's views on this issue. > If the solution mentioned before is ok, I will start to complete it.
Please don't top-post, it makes the flow of the conversation very hard to follow.
Sorry, my fault, I am so anxious.
> Recently, I found 'psql' is not rebuilt automatically after > editing 'fe_utils/psqlscan.l'. > ... > It's OK for 'libpq' since 'libpq' is a dynamic library. > For a static library such as 'libpgfeutils.a', should we > add dependency rule in Makefile?
Hm. I think what you're saying is that when we copied the makefile patterns used for libpq.so to use for libpgport and libpgfeutils, we did the wrong thing because those are static not dynamic libraries. We don't have to relink psql if libpq.so gets some non-API-relevant changes, but we do need to relink it if libpgport.a does, so I suppose you are right. However, this doesn't seem like the right way to fix it: > # add STLIBS as normal prerequisite > psql: $(OBJS) $(STLIBS) | submake-libpq submake-libpgport submake-libpgfeutils > $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(OBJS) $(LDFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS_EX) $(LIBS) -o $@$(X)
Your point is that the static libraries should be treated as normal dependencies not order-only ones, so building that behavior like this seems pretty bizarre.
where of course the library file names need to be wrapped up in macros, but this is what it'd look like after macro expansion. (I'm not sure this is right in detail, but my point is that we don't want order-only dependencies for these libraries.)
