[jamming] INCLUDES bug? - davi...@rcn.com - com.perforce.jamming

15 messages in com.perforce.jamming[jamming] INCLUDES bug?

From	Sent On	Attachments
Steve Goodson	22 Nov 2002 21:34
davi...@rcn.com	23 Nov 2002 12:03
Matt Armstrong	24 Nov 2002 15:35
davi...@rcn.com	24 Nov 2002 15:41
Christopher Seiwald	02 Dec 2002 09:11
Vladimir Prus	03 Dec 2002 03:34
Arnt Gulbrandsen	03 Dec 2002 04:06
Vladimir Prus	03 Dec 2002 04:29
Vladimir Prus	03 Dec 2002 04:49
Arnt Gulbrandsen	03 Dec 2002 06:26
Vladimir Prus	03 Dec 2002 09:56
Christopher Seiwald	03 Dec 2002 10:46
Vladimir Prus	03 Dec 2002 11:23
davi...@rcn.com	03 Dec 2002 11:53
Christopher Seiwald	10 Dec 2002 00:59

Subject:	[jamming] INCLUDES bug?
From:	davi...@rcn.com (davi...@rcn.com)
Date:	11/23/2002 12:03:25 PM
List:	com.perforce.jamming

Steve Goodson <stev...@mscsoftware.com> writes:

From my reading of the documentation, the statement

INCLUDES b : c ;

should mean that b itself does not depend on c, but anything that depends on b also depends on c.

With the following Jamfile

actions Make { touch $(1) }

Make a ; Make b ;

DEPENDS a : b ; INCLUDES b : c ;

My expectation is that jam would be able to make 'b', but would refuse to make 'a' for lack of 'c'. Instead, jam refuses to make 'b' for lack of 'c'. Is this a bug?

The description of INCLUDES and LEAVES in the documentation seem to have little or nothing to do with their implementation or actual behavior AFAICT. In fact, I have never been able to get LEAVES to do anything that makes sense. INCLUDES b : c, if you look at the implementation, actually makes b depend on c in a weaker way than DEPENDS b : c, and it seems to be useful for suppressing warning messages about independent targets when a rule builds two targets and only one may be a dependency of what has to be built, for example when you are building a DLL and a corresponding import library on Windows.

I would really like to see some clarification of both the intention and actual behavior of these rules.

-Dave