This is slightly inelegant, as the old style
echo foo
echo blah
chmod a+x $3
doesn't work anymore; the stuff you wrote to stdout didn't end up in $3.
You can rewrite it as:
exec >$3
echo foo
echo blah
chmod a+x $3
Anyway, it's better this way, because now we can tell the difference between
a zero-length $3 and a nonexistent one. A .do script can thus produce
either one and we'll either delete the target or move the empty $3 to
replace it, whichever is right.
As a bonus, this simplifies our detection of whether you did something weird
with overlapping changes to stdout and $3.
We would build 'somefile' correctly the first time, but we wouldn't
attach the dependency on somefile to the right $TARGET, so our target would
not auto-rebuild in the future based on somefile.
It actually decreases readability of the .do files - by not making it
explicit when you're going into a subdir.
Plus it adds ambiguity: what if there's a dirname.do *and* a dirname/all?
We could resolve the ambiguity if we wanted, but that adds more code, while
taking out this special case makes *less* code and improves readability.
I think it's the right way to go.
Normally, creating the target $1 yourself is bad; create $3 instead. But if
$1 is a directory, we'll allow it. That way 'redo subdir' can call
subdir.do, and subdir.do can both create the directory *and* run a bunch of
sub-.do files on it.
Now t/curse passes again when parallelized (except for the countall
mismatch, since we haven't fixed the source of that problem yet). At least
it's consistent now.
There's a bunch of stuff rearranged in here, but the actual important
problem was that we were doing unlink() on the lock fifo even if ENXIO,
which meant a reader could connect in between ENXIO and unlink(), and thus
never get notified of the disconnection. This would cause the build to
randomly freeze.
...because it seems my locking isn't very good. It exposes annoying
problems involving rebuilding the same files more than once, screwing up
stamp files with redo -j, and being unnecessarily slow when checking
dependencies. So it's a pretty good test considering how simple it is.
Didn't add it to t/all.do yet, because it would fail.
