From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org
Cc: reinp...@win.tue.nl, bug-make@gnu.org
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 16:51:47 -0400
I think enabling [-O] by default will be a no-brainer if/when we come up
with a way to get it to produce the same output as without -j. IOW,
run a parallel build, but output
: I've tested your changes and so far -O job works for my use cases.
I shouldn't have written that. :-( Shortly afterwards, I found a bug
or perhaps two:
foo:
@echo foo
+@echo bar
(a)
% make -Ojob
foo
bar
foo
(b)
% make -Otarget
bar
foo
As you see, (a) -Ojob writes foo twice
From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org
Cc: stefano.lattar...@gmail.com, bug-make@gnu.org
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 17:17:44 -0400
-O in no way changes that behavior, all it does is ensure that output
from any individual line or target of the recipe will not interfere with
any other individual line
Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 04:42:32 +0200
Cc: e...@gnu.org, david.s.bo...@gmail.com, bug-make@gnu.org
From: Frank Heckenbach f.heckenb...@fh-soft.de
: /* This is needed to avoid the label at end of compound statement
: diagnostics on Posix platforms. */
I don't think that's a POSIX
On 04/30/2013 03:37 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Most of these were found using Lucas De Marchi's 'codespell' tool.
* ChangeLog: Fix minor typos.
* ChangeLog.2: Likewise.
* README.Amiga: Likewise.
* TODO.private: Likewise.
* function.c: Likewise.
* glob/glob.h: Likewise.
* job.c:
On 05/04/2013 01:34 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2013-05-04 at 11:52 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Ping? Any reason not to apply this trivial patch?
You may have noticed, there's a lot going on right now... and I do have
an actually for-$$ job as well :-). Many of these kinds of things
On Sat, 2013-05-04 at 09:57 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org
Cc: reinp...@win.tue.nl, bug-make@gnu.org
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 16:51:47 -0400
I think enabling [-O] by default will be a no-brainer if/when we come up
with a way to get it to produce the same
From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org
Cc: reinp...@win.tue.nl, bug-make@gnu.org
Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 09:04:24 -0400
you may see this:
xa
xb
a
$(MAKE) foo
xc
xd
b
If a appears before xb, then that's all I ask for.
If we want it to be no worse, then why do we need it at
On Sat, 2013-05-04 at 08:57 +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
I shouldn't have written that. :-( Shortly afterwards, I found a bug
or perhaps two:
foo:
@echo foo
+@echo bar
(a)
% make -Ojob
foo
bar
foo
(b)
% make -Otarget
bar
foo
As you see, (a) -Ojob writes foo
I think having this facility built into make is a win, especially as
parallel builds become predominant. I would be even more happy about it
if we can get it to the point where it can be enabled by default, and
users don't even have to worry about it.
I agree with Paul. This is something
Should the Make manual include instructions, however short, about
building extensions? Not writing the code (that is covered), but
actually compiling the extensions so that Make will be able to load
them.
___
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 12:55 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
Suppose we do this: if we're about to invoke a line marked recursive
and we're in -Otarget mode, then before we run it we'll show the
current contents of the temp file (using the normal synchronized
output function).
I've implemented this
Hi Paul.
On 05/05/2013 12:10 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 12:55 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
Suppose we do this: if we're about to invoke a line marked recursive
and we're in -Otarget mode, then before we run it we'll show the
current contents of the temp file (using the normal
* doc/make.texi: Here. It was sufficient to change an '@itemx'
into an '@item'.
Copyright-paperwork-exempt: yes
Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com
---
doc/make.texi | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/doc/make.texi b/doc/make.texi
index
Paul Smith wrote:
The first one I've seen but hadn't had time to debug. I'll look at your
patch. I left the truncate where it was rather than doing it after the
sync_output() because I was hoping to avoid truncating a file that we'll
never use again anyway, but I guess it isn't a big deal.
15 matches
Mail list logo
