>> I think having this facility built into make is a win, especially as
>> parallel builds become predominant. I would be even more happy about it
>> if we can get it to the point where it can be enabled by default, and
>> users don't even have to worry about it.
> I agree with Paul. This is some
> From: Paul Smith
> Cc: reinp...@win.tue.nl, bug-make@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 09:04:24 -0400
>
> you may see this:
>
> xa
> xb
> a
> $(MAKE) foo
> xc
> xd
> b
If "a" appears before "xb", then that's all I ask for.
> > If we want it to be "no worse", then why do we need
On Sat, 2013-05-04 at 09:57 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Paul Smith
> > Cc: reinp...@win.tue.nl, bug-make@gnu.org
> > Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 16:51:47 -0400
> >
> > > I think enabling [-O] by default will be a no-brainer if/when we come up
> > > with a way to get it to produce the same ou
> From: Paul Smith
> Cc: reinp...@win.tue.nl, bug-make@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 16:51:47 -0400
>
> > I think enabling [-O] by default will be a no-brainer if/when we come up
> > with a way to get it to produce the same output as without -j. IOW,
> > run a parallel build, but output its r
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 16:16 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Paul Smith
> > Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 08:57:57 -0400
> > Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
> >
> > I think having this facility built into make is a win, especially as
> > parallel builds become predominant. I would be even more happy about it
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:02 +0200, Reinier Post wrote:
>> Using a separate utility seems to be a clean
>> solution here, and that is fact how it was originally done:
>>
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-make/2011-04/msg00018.html
There'
I've done the "external utility" solution and only because we absolutely
had no other choice - it's not much fun and can be done much more
effectively by make itself.
Regards,
Tim
On 3 May 2013 14:16, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Paul Smith
> > Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 08:57:57 -0400
> > Cc:
> From: Paul Smith
> Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 08:57:57 -0400
> Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
>
> I think having this facility built into make is a win, especially as
> parallel builds become predominant. I would be even more happy about it
> if we can get it to the point where it can be enabled by default,
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:02 +0200, Reinier Post wrote:
> Reading this discussion, as a bystander I can't help wondering whether
> the addition of -O is worthwhile. Unix tools are supposed to be
> small and dedicated. Using a separate utility seems to be a clean
> solution here, and that is fact ho
Reading this discussion, as a bystander I can't help wondering whether
the addition of -O is worthwhile. Unix tools are supposed to be
small and dedicated. Using a separate utility seems to be a clean
solution here, and that is fact how it was originally done:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 20:30 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> With this simple Makefile:
>
> all:
> @echo foobar!
> true
Yes this is a bug. I thought of this while we were having our
discussion yesterday. Unfortunately in all our tests we were using "@"
to silence make's output of t
With this simple Makefile:
all:
@echo foobar!
true
I get:
D:\gnu\make-3.82.90_GIT_2013-05-01>gnumake -j -f mkfsync1
foobar!
true
which is expected, but:
D:\gnu\make-3.82.90_GIT_2013-05-01>gnumake -j -f mkfsync1 -O
true
foobar!
Is this also expected? (I see the sam
12 matches
Mail list logo
