Re: [PATCH] t/Makefile: Use $(sort ...) explicitly where needed

> Kirill Smelkov <kirr@navytux.spb.ru> writes:
> 
> >> I do not necessarily buy your "so we HAVE TO, OR ELSE".
> >> 
> >> Even though I can understand "We can sort the list of tests _if_ we do not
> >> want them executed in seemingly random order when running 'make -j1'", I
> >> tend to think that *if* is a big one.  Aren't these tests designed not to
> >> depend on each other anyway?
> >
> > Yes, they don't depend on each other, but what's the point in not
> > sorting them? I usually watch test progress visually, and if tests are
> > sorted, even with make -j4 they go more or less incrementally by their t
> > number.
> >
> > On my netbook, adding $(sort ...) adds approximately 0.008s to make
> > startup, so imho there is no performance penalty to adding that sort.
> 
> Heh, who said anything about performance?
> 
> I was pointing out that your justification "we HAVE TO" was wrong.
> 
> If you are doing this for perceived prettyness and not as a fix for any
> correctness issue, I want to see the patch honestly described as such;
> that's all.

> By the way, if I recall correctly, $(sort) in GNU make not just sorts but
> as a nice side effect removes duplicates. So if we used a(n fictional)
> construct in our Makefile like this:
> 
>     T = $(wildcard *.sh a.*)
> 
> that might produce duplicates (i.e. "a.sh" might appear twice), which
> might leave us two identical pathnames in $T and cause us trouble.  Even
> if we do not have such a use currently, rewriting $(wildcard) like your
> patch does using $(sort $(wildcard ...)) may be a good way to future-proof
> our Makefile, and if you justify your patch that way, it would be a
> possible correctness hardening, not just cosmetics, and phrasing it with
> "HAVE TO" may be justifiable.
> 
> Care to try if $(wildcard *.sh a.*) give you duplicated output with newer
> GNU make? I am lazy but am a bit curious ;-)