>>> "Jim" == Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jim> Hi Alexandre! Jim> Here are a couple of minor suggested wording changes. Thanks for the corrections. 2005-03-29 Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * doc/automake.texi (Multiple Outputs): Fix mistakes reported by Jim Meyering. Index: doc/automake.texi =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/automake/automake/doc/automake.texi,v retrieving revision 1.44.2.47 diff -u -r1.44.2.47 automake.texi --- doc/automake.texi 29 Mar 2005 18:47:09 -0000 1.44.2.47 +++ doc/automake.texi 29 Mar 2005 20:16:52 -0000 @@ -8448,11 +8448,11 @@ @end example The above scheme can be extended to handle more outputs and more -inputs. One of the output is picked up to serve as a witness of the -run of the command, it depends upon all inputs, and all other outputs -depend upon it. For instance if @command{foo} should additionally -read @file{data.bar} and also produce @file{data.w} and @file{data.x}, -we would write: +inputs. One of the outputs is selected to serve as a witness to the +successful completion of the command, it depends upon all inputs, and +all other outputs depend upon it. For instance if @command{foo} +should additionally read @file{data.bar} and also produce [EMAIL PROTECTED] and @file{data.x}, we would write: @example data.c: data.foo data.bar @@ -8468,7 +8468,7 @@ However there are now two minor problems in this setup. One is related to the timestamp ordering of @file{data.h}, @file{data.w}, @file{data.x}, and @file{data.c}. The other one is a race condition -if a parallel @command{make} attempts to run multiple instance of the +if a parallel @command{make} attempts to run multiple instances of the recover block at once. Let us deal with the first problem. @command{foo} outputs four files, @@ -8521,21 +8521,21 @@ This solution still suffers from the second problem: the race condition in the recover rule. If, after a successful build, a user -erases @file{data.c} and @file{data.h}, and run @samp{make -j}, then +erases @file{data.c} and @file{data.h}, and runs @samp{make -j}, then @command{make} may start both recover rules in parallel. If the two instances of the rule execute @samp{$(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) data.stamp} concurrently the build is likely to fail (for instance the two rules will create @file{data.tmp}, but only one can rename it). -Admittedly, such weird situation does not happen during ordinary +Admittedly, such a weird situation does not happen during ordinary builds. It occurs only when the build tree is mutilated. Here @file{data.c} and @file{data.h} have been explicitly removed without also removing @file{data.stamp} and the other output files. @code{make clean; make} will always recover from these situations even -with parallel makes, so you may decide that the recover rule is just +with parallel makes, so you may decide that the recover rule is solely an help to non-parallel make users and leave things as-is. Fixing this requires some locking mechanism to ensure only one instance of -the recover rule rebuild @code{data.stamp}. One could imagine +the recover rule rebuilds @code{data.stamp}. One could imagine something along the following lines. @example -- Alexandre Duret-Lutz