Re: mv command wierdness. (error in VFS?)
dalecki (dalecki@cs.net.pl)
Thu, 17 Dec 1998 23:00:56 +0100
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
>
> In message <36791E9D.3C57F572@cs.net.pl>, Marcin Dalecki writes:
> +-----
> | Just recently I have noticed a quite interresting thing:
> |
> | I have just moved an backup version of a file in an compilation tree
> | over the orignal:
> |
> | mv backup.c~ backup.c
> |
> | That's nothing special of course. However the interresting thing
> | was that make didn't notice this at all. In esp. it didnt notice this
> +--->8
>
> The backup is presumably older than the original, and presumably you
> compiled the original before moving the backup in its place; thus, make sees
> a source file that's older than the corresponding object file and doesn't
> rebuild the object file. I.e. normal behavior.
That's clear. What I was just unsure about was if changing the name of
the
file shouldn't supposedly change the modification time for it too...
However at least the normal behaviour is breaking the logic of make,
which is
indeed supposed to ramke anything properly after any kind of change!
> If you thought mv would change the date on the resulting backup.c, you need
> to study how *ix-ish timestamps work. Meanwhile, "touch backup.c".
Of course obviously that's what I have surely done after discovering
this
quite not straight behaviour.
Marcin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/