> From: "Markus Mauhart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:38:29 +0100 > > Eli, you did not include my addition of the IMHO missing "goto error" > in function start_job_command(..) once process_easy(..) failes. > In my case, whithout this patch, make entered an infinite loop.
I didn't have enough time to handle everything. I just verified that with my changes, process_easy never fails even when there are 64 processes running. > I havnt tried your current patches, but you probably have verified > that with them my experiment's call into process_easy() will either > no more happen or no more fail. > > Additionally, are you sure that no more other failing process_easy() > inside start_job_command(..) will ever happen, or that only the failure > in my tests (as other failures inside start_job_command()) would need > the "goto error" ? Your failures were partially induced by your change that forced a failure inside process_easy when it attempted to launch a 65th process. I added changes in job.c to prevent this from happening. So the scenario where process_easy fails should be limited to real failures. (You will see that I also added to process_easy a test for when it is called to launch processes when there are already 64 processes waiting, but in my testing I never saw the error message from that test, and the list printed by "--debug=j" never showed more than 64 live processes.) > IOW, if you dont have good reasons against my added "goto error", > then we should make sure that it goes into the make381 release. I will look into this when I have more time. _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
