On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Paul Smith <psm...@gnu.org> wrote: > I wonder if we can figure out a way to make this work better, as Eli > asked. Can we work out a way to handle "normal" rules (rules with "+" > or $(MAKE)) and "sub-make" rules differently, so that output from normal > rules wasn't collected behind a sub-make? I'm not sure I see exactly > how this could work.
Thinking, thinking, ... > The other thing I was thinking is that this feature might want to be > enabled via a command-line argument. All the complex makefiles > generated by automake, etc. for example cannot take advantage of this if > you have to modify every makefile to add the special target. Hmm, it feels like you've reversed position since last year? When I submitted the patch for .ONESHELL it included a new "--one-shell" flag and you rejected the flag part saying you didn't want make to "end up like GNU tar" in the sense of having an overwhelming number of options. Personally I don't see what's so bad about exposing useful features at the command line, and I can't say I ever wished that GNU tar would do less of it, but I figured that was your aesthetic and I'd go with it. That was when you came up with the --eval option, which I found brilliant BTW. So I guess the first-order answer to your point would be "there is a way to enable this at the command line and you invented it": --eval=.PARALLELSYNC:". However, I personally like command-line options and if you want a first-class flag you'll get no argument here. > [PARALLELSYNC vs OUTPUTSYNC] I'm pretty agnostic on the name. I actually considered .OUTPUTSYNC too but felt the name should expose the fact that it's a no-op unless -j is in use. But I'm happy with it if that's the consensus. David _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make