Hi Shaun and Pavel,
Last week I spent a lot of time looking at this to try and understand
the issues with MAXPROCESS (issue74807). In particular, in building
salhelper, the failure I had occurs in this section at the fourth step:
tr -d "\015" < gcc3_linux_intel.map | awk -f /Users/MikeS/Documents/
Projects/ooo/SRC680-m202/solenv/bin/addsym.awk > ../unxmacxi.pro/misc/
gcc3_linux_intel_uno_salhelpergcc3.map
cat ../unxmacxi.pro/misc/gcc3_linux_intel_uno_salhelpergcc3.map | awk
-f /Users/MikeS/Documents/Projects/ooo/SRC680-m202/solenv/bin/unxmap-
to-macosx-explist.awk | grep -v "\*\|?" > ../unxmacxi.pro/misc/
gcc3_linux_intel_uno_salhelpergcc3.map.exported-symbols
cat ../unxmacxi.pro/misc/gcc3_linux_intel_uno_salhelpergcc3.map | awk
-f /Users/MikeS/Documents/Projects/ooo/SRC680-m202/solenv/bin/unxmap-
to-macosx-explist.awk | grep "\*\|?" > ../unxmacxi.pro/misc/
gcc3_linux_intel_uno_salhelpergcc3.map.symbols-regexp
cat ../unxmacxi.pro/slb/salhelper.lib | sed s\#unxmacxi.pro\#../
unxmacxi.pro\#g | xargs -n1 nm -gx | /Users/MikeS/Documents/Projects/
ooo/SRC680-m202/solenv/bin/addsym-macosx.sh ../unxmacxi.pro/misc/
gcc3_linux_intel_uno_salhelpergcc3.map.symbols-regexp ../unxmacxi.pro/
misc/symbols-regexp.tmp >> ../unxmacxi.pro/misc/
gcc3_linux_intel_uno_salhelpergcc3.map.exported-symbols
cp ../unxmacxi.pro/misc/
gcc3_linux_intel_uno_salhelpergcc3.map.exported-symbols ../
unxmacxi.pro/misc/gcc3_linux_intel_uno_salhelpergcc3.map
I stopped looking into it when I finally figured out that using
MAXPROCESS caused the problem, but I am still curious: where are
these commands coming from - they don't seem to be in any of the
makefiles for salhelper.
Would linking them together, for example with &&, allow them to
complete in the correct order?
Let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Mike
On Mar 6, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Shaun McDonald wrote:
Hi Pavel,
On 6 Mar 2007, at 21:09, Pavel Janík wrote:
Hi,
http://termite.go-oo.org/MacPort1/builds/147
I have continued the above build offline, and it has completed
fine. Should I submit an issue since it failed with the -P4
switch, even so it completed after a restart?
yes, please file an issue for me and I'll investigate.
Could issue 74807 be related, or the same issue?
It would be a nicer if build was more robust with parallel
builds. Such as restarting a module if it fails.
Such as build -P4 --safe
to rebuild module with -P1 after it fails? Interesting idea...
If it reduces the number of build errors, why not.
Shaun
___________________________________________________________
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of [EMAIL PROTECTED]@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard
protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
