%% "Markus Mauhart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: mm> So my latest suggestion from Jan 21st actually was correct :-)
>> To stay on the safe side IMHO we better map the old "+=" into >> logical "||=": >> + g->changed = g->changed || (commands_started > ocommands_started); Yes that would have worked. I considered something like that but decided to just be straightforward about it with an if-statement :-). I suppose the above allows the compiler to short-circuit the comparison if g->changed is already set, but I can't see that as important, performance-wise. mm> -> Everything ok (as usual "j number" needs some "trick" to tunnel mm> through my makefile's single level of recursion; and my makefile mm> sometimes shows a mkdir-racecondition under high concurrency, to mm> be fixed ...). In the end, without patches I get factor 2 where I mm> want it :-) Ok... "getting factor 2" is good I assume :-) mm> One link contained a typo: mm> wrong: http://members.chello.at/ejg8dk49/themake-2006.02.22.zip mm> right: same......................................2006.01.22.... This one works. Cheers! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
