[Scons-dev] debugging signatures

[Kenny, Jason L]

We could also say the same about the target values. I believe that is in the stuff that get a signature as well

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: scons-dev-bounces at scons.org [mailto:scons-dev-bounces at scons.org] On Behalf Of William Deegan
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 2:03 PM
To: Tom Tanner; SCons developer list
Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] debugging signatures

Tom,

If order of your sources is important then it's important to store it in the signature.
If not, then it probably isn't.

-Bill
On Sep 21, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Tom Tanner (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) <ttanner2 at bloomberg.net> wrote:


> So if you ${SOURCES} the names of all the sources go in the signature calculation? even though they're already dependencies anyway? So I should really do $( ${SOURCES} $) in my situation?

> 

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: garyo at oberbrunner.com

> To: TOM TANNER (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON), scons-dev at scons.org

> At: Sep 21 2012 13:11:18

> 

> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Tom Tanner (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) 

> <ttanner2 at bloomberg.net> wrote:

>> But thats referring to $( $) not ${ $}. I think it'd be wrong to put 

>> the sources in the signature calculation as they are probably already 

>> in the dependencies, but I don't know if it does or doesn't

> 

> Bill's right.  ${...$} does variable substitution, just like $FOO.

> The result of that substitution goes into the signature.  Everything 

> except what's in $(...$) goes in.

> 

> --

> Gary

> 

> _______________________________________________

> Scons-dev mailing list

> Scons-dev at scons.org

> http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev


_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev at scons.org
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev