On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:46 PM, David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com wrote:
So I've made a proof-of-concept patch
against 3.82.90 which seems to work without that overhead and my
question is, would this be of interest towards 3.83?
Ping?
The original patch attachment was made by hand using
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 11:01 -0400, David Boyce wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:46 PM, David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com wrote:
So I've made a proof-of-concept patch
against 3.82.90 which seems to work without that overhead and my
question is, would this be of interest towards 3.83?
From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:29:09 -0400
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 11:01 -0400, David Boyce wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:46 PM, David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com
wrote:
So I've made a proof-of-concept patch
against 3.82.90 which seems to work without
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org wrote:
I've looked at it and as a concept I don't have too many issues with it
Thanks.
One example: I think saving stdout and stderr to different files and
then printing them separately is problematic; consider if your recipe
prints
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 20:48 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:29:09 -0400
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 11:01 -0400, David Boyce wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:46 PM, David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com
wrote:
So I've made a
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org wrote:
David, can you explain why you needed to lock the files? Also, what
region(s) of the file you are locking? fcntl with F_WRLCK won't work
on Windows, so the question is how to emulate it.
I was about to write this up but I see
File locking would be the exclusion mechanism with a shell
implementation, right? With Talon we used a system semaphore with
timeout-wait semantics . I would assume that one doesn't need it if
the code is in make since make can choose when to start and stop
reading from any particular file
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:12:16 -0400
From: David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com
Cc: psm...@gnu.org, bug-make@gnu.org
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org wrote:
David, can you explain why you needed to lock the files? Also, what
region(s) of the file you are
Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org writes:
One example: I think saving stdout and stderr to different files and
then printing them separately is problematic; consider if your recipe
prints lots of information lines, with errors (to stdout) interspersed.
If you throw all the errors to the end you lose a
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org wrote:
There is no specific region of the file that's locked: the lockfile is
basically a file-based, system-wide semaphore.
Yes, it's conceptually a semaphore. In fact a Windows port might
prefer to use real semaphores. The reason I
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org wrote:
Yes, but a few words about how is this semaphore supposed to get job
done, and in fact what kind of synchronization will this bring to
Make, would be appreciated. I don't think you described the feature
too much in your
-- Forwarded message --
From: Tim Murphy tnmur...@gmail.com
Date: 14 April 2011 20:43
Subject: Re: patch to support output synchronization under -j
To: psm...@gnu.org
The reason for splitting stderr and stdout is to do with deadlock and
reading pipes. IIRC. e.g. blocking on a
Ok,
To prevent any kind of deadlock you sort of want to empty everything
the stderr and stdout pipe buffers may contain.
It is conceivable that the stdout pipe might contain two lines of text
and stderr pipe might contain 1 by the time your select statement (or
waitformultipleobjects) has woken
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 20:59 +0100, Tim Murphy wrote:
To prevent any kind of deadlock you sort of want to empty everything
the stderr and stdout pipe buffers may contain.
It is conceivable that the stdout pipe might contain two lines of text
and stderr pipe might contain 1 by the time your
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 3:08 PM, David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org wrote:
I'm not sure I like the idea of having to define a lockfile to enable
this feature though. It feels a little too much like exposing the
implementation
15 matches
Mail list logo
