Re: Another minor task for the interested
At 8:12 PM + 12/6/03, harry wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: I was mostly thinking that some step or other in the Makefile has a dependency on that file, and some other step creates it, but the dependency's not explicit. I'd like to find the step(s) that require it and make it a dependency for them, then add in a dependency for the file for whatever step actually creates it, so things get ordered properly. It should (hopefully) be straightforward, but... I hope after this amount of time someone still wants this fixed. After much rummaging around I added the following to the makefile and it seems to be working up to 4 Jobs now. I think this may open up a few more problems though. I dug up where this is getting setup, and it seems to work out OK. Thanks! -- Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Another minor task for the interested
Should be straightforward though it involves diving into a twisty maze of make rules, so maybe not. Anyway, trying a make -j 4 dies a quick and horrible death, failing to find Parrot/OpLib/core.pm. My assumption here is that we're just missing some dependency rules, as a make -j 2, or a make -j 4 after a failed make -j 4 works just fine. Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: Another minor task for the interested
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Harry wrote: --- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should be straightforward though it involves diving into a twisty maze of make rules, so maybe not. Anyway, trying a make -j 4 dies a quick and horrible death, failing to find Parrot/OpLib/core.pm. My assumption here is that we're just missing some dependency rules, as a make -j 2, or a make -j 4 after a failed make -j 4 works just fine. I am having a quick look at it now. I copied the Parrot/OpLib/core.pm to a backup file, did a make clean, which removes the file. I then copied it back to its normal position and ran make -j 4 and it worked a treat so I am now trying to see at which point in the process the file gets created because it appears to be created a bit too late for make to work. (Maybe this is what you where getting at above). I was mostly thinking that some step or other in the Makefile has a dependency on that file, and some other step creates it, but the dependency's not explicit. I'd like to find the step(s) that require it and make it a dependency for them, then add in a dependency for the file for whatever step actually creates it, so things get ordered properly. It should (hopefully) be straightforward, but... Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: Another minor task for the interested
On Nov-21, Dan Sugalski wrote: I was mostly thinking that some step or other in the Makefile has a dependency on that file, and some other step creates it, but the dependency's not explicit. I'd like to find the step(s) that require it and make it a dependency for them, then add in a dependency for the file for whatever step actually creates it, so things get ordered properly. It should (hopefully) be straightforward, but... I have other evidence of dependency entanglement -- fairly often, I do a 'make; make test' (which I think is equivalent to 'make test' both theoretically and practically), and I'll have a bunch of tests fail. Doing a 'make clean; make test' fixes the failures. (Ok, sometimes it requires a re-Configure.pl too, but that's another issue.) There is a known dependency gap due to the recursive invocation of classes/Makefile, but I don't think that is causing either of these problems. Random idea for this problem and the zillions of similar problems people face all the time with make: it would be cool to patch ccache so that it reports its cache misses. And just to be anal, add a flag saying 'for this run, do not evict things from the cache to restrict space usage.' Then, when you do a 'make' that doesn't remake enough, you could do make clean export CC=ccache --report-misses=/tmp/misses.txt --no-evictions gcc make and you could look at the first miss to see an example of something that needed to be rebuilt, but did not have a dependency triggering it. (I can see at least one way in which this scheme is still not guaranteed to be correct -- there's a reasonable chance you would hit in the cache from an unrelated compile, and thus fail to see the first missing dependency.)
