Hello. It is kind of redundant, but i think i forward the message once again, now that my subscription is reestablished.
--- Forwarded from Steffen Nurpmeso <stef...@sdaoden.eu> --- Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 17:57:20 +0200 From: Steffen Nurpmeso <stef...@sdaoden.eu> Subject: Re: [1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001436]: make: add "-j max_jobs" option to support simultaneous rule processing Austin Group Bug Tracker wrote in <79557df8f0e0d0b53548449c40247...@austingroupbugs.net>: |https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1436 ... |---------------------------------------------------------------------- | (0005362) rhansen (manager) - 2021-05-20 17:08 | https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1436#c5362 |---------------------------------------------------------------------- |We think we have achieved consensus on a rewrite of the description of the |<b>-j</b> option; see "attempt #3" on line 65 of |https://posix.rhansen.org/p/2021-05-20. Feedback would be appreciated. I am not a honourable make(1) programmer but since i opened the issue i want to state that i liked it when i read it last night. I was actually surprised to see the issue reopened as such, because my thinking would have been that a -j parallelized make(1) enters some kind of jobserver mode that becomes established via some environmental setting (or whatever the programmer chooses aka can easily be found by subprocesses), the existence of which is checked by make(1) at startup. Then stating something like "i am process X, and my parent is Y" etc. And the rest being up to the make(1) implementor as a quality of implementation (scheduling, fair even more so, seems to reside in the area of very complicated programming). I was surprised to see that rule content matters at all. A nice weekend i wish from Germany, --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
