On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 07:18 +0100, Tim Murphy wrote: > Right, of course :-) That is the obvious reason for using files, > thanks! I was biased against writing things to disc which is probably > silly, because it's probably not slow when compared to the size of the > job that's running.
I think you could do the same thing with pipes although you need to spawn a separate process to track each job, most likely. The main reason I prefer solutions using files is that it's the simplest and most portable method. > Stdout and stderr will now all be stdout, BTW (no matter what method > one uses) but that's not generally such a problem. I don't quite follow that? If you're willing to separate stdout and stderr so that, for example, all stdout output comes first followed by all stderr, then you can still use both. You can just create two files, hook stdout to one and stderr to the other, and after everything is done shuttle the contents of the stdout log file to stdout and the contents of the stderr log file to stderr. The functionality would be the same (as far as what goes to what file descriptor) but they wouldn't be "interspersed". -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <psm...@gnu.org> Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://make.mad-scientist.net "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make