On 12 Sep 2002, Joerg Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MartinPool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 12.09.02 12:29:59: > > On 12 Sep 2002, Joerg Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > no, not one machine each. I was not explicit about this, but my scenario > > > is more like this: imagine having a "reference machine" where all > > > builds are done (a lot of software in the correct version installed, > > > dont ask me). > > > > Heh, I have the same thing at work. It's a pain. > > guess what I am talking about...
:-) > > In that case you might as well just use > > > > CC='ccache distcc' > > but you have to wrap it into a (shell) script if you use it with > autoconf projects. That would be a good thing to fix up. I don't think it requires a rewrite. > > > compilation. I think there are race condiitons, right? > > > > No, I don't think there's any race there. Where do you think it is? > > I am not sure, but looking at util.c:safe_open(), what is used in many > places, e.g. stats.c: write_stats() . These calls are not locked at all, > right? Is it save? It looks to me like in every case where that function is called, it is followed by a call to lock_fd(). -- Martin _______________________________________________ distcc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.samba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/distcc
