Make 3.82 has inherited some issues in from 3.81 in features/parallelism
- and added some new ones in features/double_colon, options/dash-l, and
targets/SECONDARY.
All except those in targets/SECONDARY (which I do not 100% understand
yet) are related to tests using sleep for parallelization tests
On Aug 30, 10 19:52:48 +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
That results in make not building reliable on our opensuse build system;
I'm currently using the attached patch to increase the sleep times by a
factor of four. A reasonable solution would probably use a configurable
factor, so you can run
On Aug 31, 10 09:54:50 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 19:52 +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
All except those in targets/SECONDARY (which I do not 100% understand
yet) are related to tests using sleep for parallelization tests -
something highly unreliable on systems with lots of
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 19:52 +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
All except those in targets/SECONDARY (which I do not 100% understand
yet) are related to tests using sleep for parallelization tests -
something highly unreliable on systems with lots of processors and
high load.
Lots of processors
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 16:10 +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
In effect, the tests of make 3.81 failed on our build systems every now
and then. For 3.82 this is worse, I was able to sometimes fail one of
the tests even on my local workstation with 8 cores and not too much
stuff running otherwise. It
On Aug 31, 10 10:40:55 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
I already wrote that this issue exists when make version 3.81 was
released, and the discussion wasn't exactly long or productive.
It's hard for me to track issues long term via email. Is there a
Savannah bug filed about this? That's the
From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:40:55 -0400
Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
Right, I didn't mean flock() or something; I just meant test for
existence. But, doing a loop waiting for a file to exist in a UNIX
shell vs. Windows command.com (for example) is not simple.
I
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 20:15 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:40:55 -0400
Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
Right, I didn't mean flock() or something; I just meant test for
existence. But, doing a loop waiting for a file to exist in a UNIX
From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org
CC: mh...@suse.de, bug-make@gnu.org
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:24:45 -0400
Too bad GNU's version of sleep, that accepts fractional seconds, is not
portable :-).
How about introducing a new Make function $(sleep) ? ;-)
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 20:32 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org
CC: mh...@suse.de, bug-make@gnu.org
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:24:45 -0400
Too bad GNU's version of sleep, that accepts fractional seconds, is not
portable :-).
How about introducing a new Make
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 21:15 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org
CC: mh...@suse.de, bug-make@gnu.org
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:41:44 -0400
How about introducing a new Make function $(sleep) ? ;-)
I don't see how that can work...? We don't want make to
From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org
Reply-To: psm...@gnu.org
CC: mh...@suse.de, bug-make@gnu.org
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:57:16 -0400
A sub-make could sleep, no?
What I'm saying is that if you have a rule like this:
foo:
$(sleep 0.10) echo hi
The recipe is always
12 matches
Mail list logo
