On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Jos Backus <[email protected]> wrote: > It would trigger my OCD ;)
<an aside> Saw a post that read: "I have CDO. It's like OCD but with the letters in alphabetical order." </an aside> > <questions on drake> > Is this something the drake author could help gain certainty about? Oh, yes. Certainly. The fault is my own laziness. > <discussion of options> > > I like -m better, it avoids a future behavioral change conflict with -j. Michael's proposal introduces both a -j and -m flag. The -j flag sets the thread pool size and the -m turns tasks into multi-task. The drake behavior is to use -j to do both jobs and leave no way of setting the thread pool for multitasks. > <problems with arbitrarily turning on multithreading> > > But would it not require users to specify some option? Iow, the default case > would not be affected. And if someone specifies a new option, the > documentation could point out that in the case of incomplete dependency > specifications, recipes that depend on pure sequential operation for > correctness could break, and the missing dependencies need to be specified. The problem is not incomplete dependency specifications, but using shared/mutable objects in tasks (that suddenly could be executed in multiple threads). I doubt there is any completely safe way to do this in general, but would like to hear ideas on reducing risk. -- -- Jim Weirich -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ Rake-devel mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rake-devel
