to mk nuke or not mk nuke?

to mk nuke or not mk nuke?

[Ethan Grammatikidis]

cinap: i'm sorry for the fuss in irc yesterday. i was trying to keep in mind the symptoms of my problem and what i'd done while following along with what you were saying, and it was all too much for my little brain. i've checked my logs, and found a few extra lines in the ircrc session i forgot to quit on my 9front machine which i forgot to shut down -- told you it was too much for my brain, lol. yesterday i totally missed that you'd stopped talking about linker internals, i was trying to hold that in my brain too! perhaps i should stop trying to get help over irc.

today i looked at mkfiles, and tried to edit them to see if i could fix the problem myself, but then i realised: cc.a6 is a library, do we want mk clean to clean it up, or just continue relying on mk nuke? have i misinterpreted the hate for mk nuke that i remember? i have a couple of other questions/problems too.

why is there a library in the source tree? if we had /sys/src/libcc/ instead, it would get cleaned up by 'mk install' or 'mk libs'.

i added CLEANFILES=cc.a[0568qv] to /sys/src/cmd/cc/mkfile (see /sys/src/cmd/mklibs:/clean). mk correctly passed this to rm -f, but then rm did not remove cc.a6. i ran 'rm cc.a[0568qv]' (no -f) manually, hoping to see an error, but there was no error and it correctly removed cc.a6. at this point i'm just "what is this i don't even", and i'm sending the email now before i get any more confused. :)

-- 
Linux? I used ext4 for a few years. In proportion to the time spent using it, I lost as much data to it as I lost to the very worst released version of reiserfs.

Re: [9front] to mk nuke or not mk nuke?

[Ethan Grammatikidis]

On Tue, May 16, 2017, at 02:49 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
> i added CLEANFILES=cc.a[0568qv] 

should be CLEANFILES=cc.a[$OS]