In article <yYva7.18321$GC4.4165649@nnrp1.proxad.net>, "nicolas" <n.brunot@cadwin.com> writes:
> "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> a �crit dans le
> message news: NKj7nYr7sQCg@eisner.encompasserve.org...
>> In article <%jra7.3545$257.153834@ozemail.com.au>, "Chris Miller"
> <chrismil@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>>
>> > I seem to recall that it had a very smart recompilation algorithm that
> could
>> > drastically reduce the set of files that had to be recompiled after a
> change
>> > had been made. Instead of just using file timestamp and "with" clause
>> > dependencies, it would actually look into the code and deduce that most
> of
>> > the recompilations were unnecessary. Very fast - great for big projects.
> 
> Beside that, the timestamp method cannot always be trusted.
> We had problems with gnatmake which doesn't always recompile necessary
> files.
> The problem occurs when several files in different directories have same
> name, same timestamp, and are selected with ADA_INCLUDE_PATH
> timestamp and name of the file is checked, they are the sames, gnatmake
> doesn't figure out that this is a different file and doesn't recompile it.

Well that sounds like just an implementation bug rather than a
conceptual flaw.