> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:36:15 -0500
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected]
> From: "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> %% Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ez> It doesn't die; vfork returns -1 with errno set to EAGAIN, and the
> ez> rule's commands are not run.
>
> But, is the rule marked as failed?
>
> If not, that's obviously a bug. If so, that might be good enough for
> this unusual case.
Here's the transcript (you can try it yourself, it's a makefile from
parallelism test):
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat mkf4
recurse: ; @$(MAKE) --no-print-directory -f mkf4 INC=yes all
all: 0 1 2; @echo success
0: ; @echo $(MAKEFLAGS)
INC = no
ifeq ($(INC),yes)
-include 1.inc 2.inc
endif
1.inc: ; @echo ONE.inc; sleep 2; echo TWO.inc; echo '1: ; @echo ONE; sleep
2; echo TWO' > $@
2.inc: ; @sleep 1; echo THREE.inc; echo '2: ; @sleep 1; echo THREE' > $@
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ulimit -S 7
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ make -j -f mkf4
--no-print-directory -j -- INC=yes
ONE
THREE
TWO
success
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ulimit -S -u 9
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ make -j -f mkf4
make[1]: vfork: Resource temporarily unavailable
--no-print-directory -j -- INC=yes
ONE
TWO
As you see, after limiting the number of jobs, the commands for 2.inc
are not run because vfork fails, but Make doesn't say anything about
failing to remake the target.
_______________________________________________
Make-w32 mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
