On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 14:48:18 -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> that a.cpp depends on, whereas I *always*¹ need to rebuild the BMI for
> a.cpp with or without reusable BMI's.
>
> (¹ Pedantically, it depends on if what was changed affects the BMI or
> not. I'm not sure if IDE's will become "smart enough" to make this
> determination.)

The compiler can decide to say the BMI that is there is sufficient and
leave it alone (either by hash or mtime). At least ninja (with `restat =
1`) will see that and prune the subgraph that no longer needs scheduled
because it is up-to-date with the output.

--Ben