Re: [PATCH] Makefile: add and use the ".DELETE_ON_ERROR" flag

From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Makefile: add and use the ".DELETE_ON_ERROR" flag
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 21:54:06 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r1gs1hfx.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YNI3WVu5SK7pHI7T@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Tue, Jun 22 2021, Jeff King wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 07:34:13PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> > That makes me a little sad, but it does leave us with a much cleaner
>> > Makefile as a result. So, I'm not really sure how to feel about it. I
>> > think in general I would be happy overall to see this picked up.
>> >
>> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/YGQdpkHAcFR%2FzNOx@coredump.intra.peff.net/
>> 
>> Yes, it makes me sad too, but as noted above I think you're right about
>> the general case, and so is Jeff in that E-Mail you linked, but it
>> doesn't apply to these patches, or my earlier patches.
>> 
>> I'd like us to always have a working binary, but from my understanding
>> of Jeff and Junio's position on it it's something they'd like to
>> actively prevent, see the discussion around my earlier series.
>> 
>> I.e. from what I gather they view this "your thing is clobbered as it
>> builds" as a feature. I.e. it serves to throw a monkey wrench into any
>> use of git that may overlap with said build, and they think that's a
>> feature.
>
> Just to be clear, I would be happy to drop the "oops, the tests barf if
> you recompile halfway through" feature away if it made things more
> robust overall (i.e., if we always did an atomic rename-into-place). I
> just consider it the fact that we do clobber to be an accidental feature
> that is not really worth "fixing". But if we care about "oops, make was
> interrupted and now you have a stale build artifact with a bogus
> timestamp" type of robustness, and "the tests barf" goes away as a side
> effect, I won't complain.

..and "this behavior is really annoying on one platform we target, and
the fix is rather trivial".

> I'd like it a lot more if we didn't have to add "mv $@+ $@" to every
> rule to get there. In some other projects I've worked on, compilation
> happens with a script, like:
>
>   %.o: %.c
> 	./compile $@

I'd think that supporting e.g. "-o" in the middle of an argument list in
such a tool would be more annoying than on the order of a dozen
callsites I needed to add this to in the linked series.

But yes, we could do it in some helper script too; I actually wrote one
that does almost that a while ago for a related use-case, simplifying
the "use cmp(1) and replace if different" we have copy/pasted in various
places.

> and then that "compile" script is generated by the Makefile, and encodes
> all of the dependencies of what's in $(CC), $(CFLAGS), and so on (we'd
> probably have an update-if-changed rule like we do for GIT-CFLAGS).
>
> And it also becomes an easy single spot to do that kind of "let's
> replaced the output atomically" trick.
>
> That's a pretty big departure from our current Makefile style, though.
> And I don't feel like it buys us a lot. Having a pretty generic and
> typical Makefile is nice for people coming to the project (I have
> noticed that most people are not well versed in "make" arcana).

I still think just doing "&& mv $@+ $@" is the simplest in this case, we
already have that in a dozen places in the Makefile, I wanted to add it
to a dozen or so more.

It's a common pattern already, I'd think if anything applying it
uniformly would make things easier to read, even if we didn't get more
portability & the ability to run stuff concurrently when you have "make"
active as bonus.