Right, of course :-) That is the obvious reason for using files,
thanks! I was biased against writing things to disc which is probably
silly, because it's probably not slow when compared to the size of the
job that's running.
Stdout and stderr will now all be stdout, BTW (no matter what method
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:30:42 -0400
From: David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com
Cc: Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org, bug-make@gnu.org
I don't know why this hasn't occurred to me or the authors of similar
programs before, but it appears to be possible to get a lock on any
writable file
I replied to this without using reply all and I apologise. :-)
The order of the output from separate recipes may be anything -
depends on how make schedules them but at least the output from any
particular recipe will be grouped together and not mixed with the
output from others, hence allowing
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 07:18 +0100, Tim Murphy wrote:
Right, of course :-) That is the obvious reason for using files,
thanks! I was biased against writing things to disc which is probably
silly, because it's probably not slow when compared to the size of the
job that's running.
I think you
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:45 AM, Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org wrote:
I lack the higher-level picture. Can you describe in a few words how
will this work in a running Make? I don't mean the details of how
files are locked and unlocked (I understand that part), I mean the
larger picture, like
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:43:53 +0100
From: Tim Murphy tnmur...@gmail.com
Cc: David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com, bug-make@gnu.org
I think it's an inevitable consequence that if you have a long-running
task then the output from it won't appear until it has completely
finished and you
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:30 PM, David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know why this hasn't occurred to me or the authors of similar
programs before, but it appears to be possible to get a lock on any
writable file descriptor - for instance stdout or stderr, or one of
the
Hello everybody.
On Friday 15 April 2011, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Btw, there will be other side effects, at least on non-Posix
platforms, due to the fact that stuff that was supposed to go to the
screen is redirected to a file instead. Some programs sense that and
behave differently, e.g. with
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org wrote:
So effectively, whenever a job finishes, its parent Make takes the
semaphore, outputs all of the output of that job to the screen, then
releases the semaphore, is that right?
Yes, exactly.
And how do you communicate the name
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:37:13 -0400
From: David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com
Cc: psm...@gnu.org, bug-make@gnu.org
Finally, wouldn't it be a potential problem top inherit so many
handles to subordinate processes (2 for each running job)? We could
run out of available handles in
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org wrote:
But this new option uses up 2 additional files per job, doesn't it?
One or two, as discussed elsewhere in this thread.
Each sub-Make inherits all the file descriptors of all its parents,
grandparents, etc. If a sub-Make was
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:39:56 -0400
From: David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com
Cc: psm...@gnu.org, bug-make@gnu.org
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org wrote:
But this new option uses up 2 additional files per job, doesn't it?
One or two, as discussed elsewhere
What about the other issue: with the fact that output from a recipe is
only shown when the entire recipe is done. I think this is a serious
drawback, at least in some use cases. Can anything be done about
that?
The only thing that I can imagine is that one would allow one recipe
to have the
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org wrote:
Can Make be invoked with its stdout closed by the parent process? If
it is, will this still work?
I've tried to code it such that if anything goes wrong setting up the
sync, of which a closed stdout would be one example, it
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:37:13 -0400
From: David Boycedavid.s.bo...@gmail.com
it's more a question of how many parallel jobs a given make process is
managing since limits on file handles/descriptors are per process.
What about people who use make -j without limits?
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 19:54 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
What about the other issue: with the fact that output from a recipe is
only shown when the entire recipe is done. I think this is a serious
drawback, at least in some use cases. Can anything be done about
that?
I don't see how. The
I wish I could play with one of those Connection machines and find out
about the bottlenecks at j=0.25*cpus that I can see on some machines
:-(
Regards,
Tim
On 15 April 2011 19:32, Howard Chu h...@highlandsun.com wrote:
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:37:13 -0400
From: David
From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org
CC: David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com, bug-make@gnu.org
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:53:52 -0400
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 19:54 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
What about the other issue: with the fact that output from a recipe is
only shown when the entire recipe
18 matches
Mail list logo
