From 5925c11a1fe8b2e02b790dd40b031ae005d5b68f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Boris Kolpackov Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:42:04 +0200 Subject: Further operation implementation --- build/algorithm.cxx | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) (limited to 'build/algorithm.cxx') diff --git a/build/algorithm.cxx b/build/algorithm.cxx index 5be5cad..46387b3 100644 --- a/build/algorithm.cxx +++ b/build/algorithm.cxx @@ -33,21 +33,36 @@ namespace build } void - match_impl (target& t) + match_impl (action a, target& t) { for (auto tt (&t.type ()); - tt != nullptr && !t.recipe (); + tt != nullptr && !t.recipe (a); tt = tt->base) { - auto i (rules.find (tt->id)); + auto i (current_rules->find (tt->id)); - if (i == rules.end ()) // No rules registered for this target type. - continue; + if (i == current_rules->end () || i->second.empty ()) + continue; // No rules registered for this target type, try base. const auto& rules (i->second); // Hint map. - string hint; // @@ TODO - auto rs (rules.find_prefix (hint)); + // @@ TODO + // + // Different rules can be used for different operations (update + // vs test is a good example). So, at some point, we will probably + // have to support a list of hints or even an operation-hint map + // (e.g., 'hint=cxx test=foo' if cxx supports the test operation + // but we want the foo rule instead). This is also the place where + // the '{build clean}=cxx' construct (which we currently do not + // support) can come handy. + // + // Also, ignore the hint (that is most likely ment for a different + // operation) if this is a unique match. + // + string hint; + auto rs (rules.size () == 1 + ? make_pair (rules.begin (), rules.end ()) + : rules.find_prefix (hint)); for (auto i (rs.first); i != rs.second; ++i) { @@ -64,7 +79,7 @@ namespace build }, t, n)); - m = ru.match (t, hint); + m = ru.match (a, t, hint); } if (m != nullptr) @@ -91,7 +106,7 @@ namespace build }, t, n1)); - m1 = ru1.match (t, hint); + m1 = ru1.match (a, t, hint); } if (m1 != nullptr) @@ -117,7 +132,7 @@ namespace build }, t, n)); - t.recipe (ru.apply (t, m)); + t.recipe (a, ru.apply (a, t, m)); break; } else @@ -126,24 +141,24 @@ namespace build } } - if (!t.recipe ()) + if (!t.recipe (a)) fail << "no rule to update target " << t; } void - search_and_match (target& t) + search_and_match (action a, target& t) { for (prerequisite& p: t.prerequisites) { if (p.target == nullptr) search (p); - match (*p.target); + match (a, *p.target); } } target_state - update (target& t) + execute (action a, target& t) { // Implementation with some multi-threading ideas in mind. // @@ -158,13 +173,13 @@ namespace build [](target& t){info << "while updating target " << t;}, t)); - ts = t.recipe () (t); + ts = t.recipe (a) (a, t); assert (ts != target_state::unknown && ts != target_state::failed); t.state (ts); return ts; } - case target_state::uptodate: - case target_state::updated: + case target_state::unchanged: + case target_state::changed: return ts; case target_state::failed: throw failed (); @@ -172,34 +187,34 @@ namespace build } target_state - update_prerequisites (target& t) + execute_prerequisites (action a, target& t) { - target_state ts (target_state::uptodate); + target_state ts (target_state::unchanged); for (const prerequisite& p: t.prerequisites) { assert (p.target != nullptr); - if (update (*p.target) != target_state::uptodate) - ts = target_state::updated; + if (execute (a, *p.target) != target_state::unchanged) + ts = target_state::changed; } return ts; } bool - update_prerequisites (target& t, const timestamp& mt) + execute_prerequisites (action a, target& t, const timestamp& mt) { - bool u (mt == timestamp_nonexistent); + bool e (mt == timestamp_nonexistent); for (const prerequisite& p: t.prerequisites) { assert (p.target != nullptr); target& pt (*p.target); - target_state ts (update (pt)); + target_state ts (execute (a, pt)); - if (!u) + if (!e) { // If this is an mtime-based target, then compare timestamps. // @@ -210,22 +225,22 @@ namespace build // What do we do if timestamps are equal? This can happen, for // example, on filesystems that don't have subsecond resolution. // There is not much we can do here except detect the case where - // the prerequisite was updated in this run which means the - // target must be out of date. + // the prerequisite was changed in this run which means the + // action must be executed on the target as well. // - if (mt < mp || (mt == mp && ts == target_state::updated)) - u = true; + if (mt < mp || (mt == mp && ts == target_state::changed)) + e = true; } else { - // Otherwise we assume the prerequisite is newer if it was updated. + // Otherwise we assume the prerequisite is newer if it was changed. // - if (ts == target_state::updated) - u = true; + if (ts == target_state::changed) + e = true; } } } - return u; + return e; } } -- cgit v1.1