[joshuamorton]

Nah, there's stuff that scans the entire repo regularly for all kinds of interesting purposes, and of that's ignoring the fact that `atime` isn't available or a source of truth in piper.

Like conceptually I believe this could be wrong in both directions, since there's heavy caching of build artifacts, you can totally build a transitive dependency of some file without actually reading the file (and potentially do this for a relatively long period of time, though I don't think that will happen in practice), and stuff will regularly look through large swaths of files that aren't necessarily run.

[CyberDildonics]

Like conceptually why wouldn't you turn on atime and like why would you cache an entire file instead of just reading it?

[joshuamorton]

> conceptually why wouldn't you turn on atime

Because piper[1] isn't a normal filesystem. It's often accessible through a FUSE-based api, so it appears like a filesystem to some users sometimes, but it can also be accessed over an RPC api. So the concept of "atime" isn't really a fit, because, well, you access the filesystem from a view that is based on your workspace, (think, akin to the git commit hash being in the filepath), and the "real" underlying file isn't necessarily on your machine.

So under a reasonable definition of atime, the atime of most files is never, because on any given arbitrary commit, you don't access/build everything.

> you cache an entire file instead of just reading it

You don't cache the file, you cache the file's outputs, keyed by a hash of the file (or all the files which are deps of a particular output). With bazel, you have a shared build artifact cache that can securely and reliably be shared across every user at a company with tens of thousands of engineers. If I build some target `:foo`, which corresponds to `foo.o`, generated from `foo.c`, but someone built `:foo` five minutes ago, as long as `:foo` hasn't changed (and you can check that the file hasn't changed without reading it because the fancy filesystem stores a hash of the file alongside the actual file), I won't actually read `foo.c` or go though the motions of building `:foo`, I can just pull `foo.o` directly from the object cache and use that in any dependencies, which means that I can build my output without ever invoking a compiler, which is really cheap and fast.

You could argue that upon reading the hash you should update the atime, but that's extremely expensive since now you have to do writes instead of idempotent reads a bunch of times a second.

[1]: https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204032-why-google-stor...

[CyberDildonics]

Nah, like conceptually you could check the atime of the cached outputs too

[joshuamorton]

I mean that's functionally what they do, just more accurately since it isn't read time, but time it was built into a binary since that information is accessible, and because the object cache isn't filesystem like and doesn't have an "atime".

And also you still need to reverse from a cached output foo.o, to every transitive dependency of that, of which there could be thousands. Which can be done but requires invoking the build system to do. So it's not anything like just checking a timestamp on the file.

[CyberDildonics]

Nah, conceptually a file system is already an object cache so you can use the filesystem then like use its atime

[joshuamorton]

I realize you're trolling at this point, but no a filesystem and an object cache aren't conceptually similar, in case anyone else might be confused.