Commit graph

5 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Avery Pennarun
db4c4fc17a Rename redo-oob to redo-unlocked, to more accurately represent its use.
It's still undocumented.  Because you shouldn't run it by hand.  So don't!
It's dangerous!
2010-12-19 01:20:13 -08:00
Avery Pennarun
e18fa85d58 The only thing in helpers.py that needed vars.py was the log stuff.
So put it in its own file.  Now it's safer to import and use helpers even if
you can't safely touch vars.
2010-12-11 18:34:02 -08:00
Avery Pennarun
1d26d99e0c Fix a deadlock with redo-oob.
If a checksummed target A used to exist but is now missing, and we tried to
redo-ifchange that exact file, we would unnecessarily run 'redo-oob A A';
that is, we have to build A in order to determine if A needs to be built.

The sub-targets of redo-oob aren't run with REDO_UNLOCKED, so this would
deadlock instantly.

Add an assertion to redo-oob to ensure we never try to redo-ifchange the
primary target (thus converting the deadlock into an exception).  And skip
doing redo-oob when the target is already the same as the thing we have to
check.
2010-12-11 06:16:32 -08:00
Avery Pennarun
91630a892a Whoops, redo-oob was slightly wrong when used with -j.
We called 'redo' instead of 'redo-ifchange' on our indeterminate objects.
Since other instances of redo-oob might be running at the same time, this
could cause the same object to get rebuilt more than once unnecessarily.
The unit tests caught this, I just didn't notice earlier.
2010-12-11 05:54:39 -08:00
Avery Pennarun
f702417ef3 The second half of redo-stamp: out-of-order building.
If a depends on b depends on c, and c is dirty but b uses redo-stamp
checksums, then 'redo-ifchange a' is indeterminate: we won't know if we need
to run a.do unless we first build b, but the script that *normally* runs
'redo-ifchange b' is a.do, and we don't want to run that yet, because we
don't know for sure if b is dirty, and we shouldn't build a unless one of
its dependencies is dirty.  Eek!

Luckily, there's a safe solution.  If we *know* a is dirty - eg. because
a.do or one of its children has definitely changed - then we can just run
a.do immediately and there's no problem, even if b is indeterminate, because
we were going to run a.do anyhow.

If a's dependencies are *not* definitely dirty, and all we have is
indeterminate ones like b, then that means a's build process *hasn't
changed*, which means its tree of dependencies still includes b, which means
we can deduce that if we *did* run a.do, it would end up running b.do.

Since we know that anyhow, we can safely just run b.do, which will either
b.set_checked() or b.set_changed().  Once that's done, we can re-parse a's
dependencies and this time conclusively tell if it needs to be redone or
not.  Even if it does, b is already up-to-date, so the 'redo-ifchange b'
line in a.do will be fast.

...now take all the above and do it recursively to handle nested
dependencies, etc, and you're done.
2010-12-11 05:54:39 -08:00