Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-11 Thread Dave Page
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: Yeah, it's complaining about not finding bison, but configure managed to find bison just fine. Are you sure the right make was installed? It looks suspicious because it's not talking about msys virtual maths like the

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 11/11/2010 06:58 AM, Dave Page wrote: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote: Yeah, it's complaining about not finding bison, but configure managed to find bison just fine. Are you sure the right make was installed? It looks suspicious because it's not

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-11 Thread Dave Page
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: No, all you need to unpack those is the basic-bsdtar package. Ahh, OK. That seems to be in the MinGW (compiler) section of the downloads for some reason. But to save you the pain of all this, I have copied the three

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-11 Thread Mark Cave-Ayland
Dave Page wrote: Thanks - installed. As a matter of policy, I do not want to drop support for a FOSS build tool chain on Windows if at all avoidable. Nor I, however I only have limited time to dedicate to that goal. One thing to think about is that since PostGIS uses MingW/PGXS on

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 11/11/2010 11:43 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: Dave Page wrote: Thanks - installed. As a matter of policy, I do not want to drop support for a FOSS build tool chain on Windows if at all avoidable. Nor I, however I only have limited time to dedicate to that goal. One thing to think

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-11 Thread Dave Page
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: Interesting. Doesn't EDB's PostgresPlus package include PostGIS, and isn't its Windows version build with MSVC? Yes - it's a PITA as we have to have a dummy build of the server in mingw/msys to compile PostGIS and

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-11 Thread Mark Cave-Ayland
Dave Page wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: Interesting. Doesn't EDB's PostgresPlus package include PostGIS, and isn't its Windows version build with MSVC? Yes - it's a PITA as we have to have a dummy build of the server in mingw/msys to

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-11 Thread Dave Page
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland mark.cave-ayl...@siriusit.co.uk wrote: Dave Page wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: Interesting. Doesn't EDB's PostgresPlus package include PostGIS, and isn't its Windows version build with

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 11/11/2010 03:19 PM, Dave Page wrote: My hope is that one day CMake will enable us to come up with a universal solution, but we're some way from that yet. We used CMake for a couple of projects, but ended up abandoning it for new stuff. It just didn't work as nicely as we wanted. Yes,

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-10 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2010-11-09 at 03:54 -0800, Dave Page wrote: Narwhal should be OK now. The build has issues now, possibly related to the make upgrade. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-10 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 11/10/2010 10:32 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On tis, 2010-11-09 at 03:54 -0800, Dave Page wrote: Narwhal should be OK now. The build has issues now, possibly related to the make upgrade. Yeah, it's complaining about not finding bison, but configure managed to find bison just fine.

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-09 Thread Dave Page
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On ons, 2010-11-03 at 16:34 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On tis, 2010-11-02 at 10:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Do we have a handle on how many buildfarm members this will break? I suppose we don't.  One way to find out

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-06 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On ons, 2010-11-03 at 16:34 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On tis, 2010-11-02 at 10:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Do we have a handle on how many buildfarm members this will break? I suppose we don't. One way to find out would be to commit just this bit +# We need the $(eval) function,

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-06 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 11/06/2010 07:35 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: So far, two machines have reported an older make version: dawn_bat narwhal both of the mingw type. Andrew, Dave, could you see about upgrading the GNU make installation there? dawn_bat is done. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-03 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2010-11-02 at 10:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: This patch requires GNU make 3.80, because of the above | feature and the $(eval) function. Version 3.80 is dated October 2002, so it should be no problem, but I do occasionally read of make 3.79

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-03 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: On tis, 2010-11-02 at 10:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Do we have a handle on how many buildfarm members this will break? I suppose we don't. One way to find out would be to commit just this bit +# We need the $(eval) function, which is available in GNU

Re: [HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-02 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: This patch requires GNU make 3.80, because of the above | feature and the $(eval) function. Version 3.80 is dated October 2002, so it should be no problem, but I do occasionally read of make 3.79 around here; maybe it's time to get rid of that. I did

[HACKERS] improved parallel make support

2010-11-01 Thread Peter Eisentraut
I have worked on some improvements on how we handle recursive make in our makefiles. Most places uses for loops, which has some disadvantages: parallel make doesn't work across directories, make -k doesn't work, and make -q doesn't work. Instead, I went with the approach that we already use in