On Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 08:26 Mischa Baars <mjbaars1977.bac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:00 PM Paul Smith <psm...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2024-03-12 at 13:37 +0100, Mischa Baars wrote: > > > > I'd still like to hear why you aren't simply using "make -j". > > > > > > That's because I don't want to define static compile and link targets > > > for every new project I start. The Makefile in question contains only > > > a few lines of code and some environment variables, but works on > > > every new project as long as you follow certain guidelines regarding > > > the directory structure. It scans, compiles and links on the fly. > > > > I don't find this argument compelling. It's relatively straightforward > > to create a makefile environment that "works on every new project as > > long as you follow certain guidelines regarding the directory > > structure" while still using parallel builds, that will "scan, compile, > > and link" on the fly, using things like the wildcard function, pattern > > rules, etc. > > > > You are merely trading a bit of extra complexity in your makefile for a > > whole lot of complexity and tricky hacking in bash, as can be seen by > > following this thread. > > > > Only the Makefile is functional right now. The bash script is not working. > Good enough to reduce compile time from 1:43 to 0:10. I would have liked to > see the script working. > u said u have fs naming conventions write em up here , i make the bash ( not sh ) But if you prefer to re-invent make's parallel build capabilities in > > bash, certainly that's your prerogative. > > >
