On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 07:06 +0100, Markus Duft wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 17:56 +0100, Markus Duft wrote:
Hi!
ping...
ping ping at least a comment on this would be cool... don't leave me
in the dark! i think my report is quite detailed, and not one of the
make is broken - fix it ...
Hi,
I'm not a maintainer or anything but I have hacked around in the bit
of code that implements the job-server. It's complicated and in my
case I realised that I actually didn't want it at all so I compiled
make without it.
Do you really need it? Do you use sub-makes (i.e. do you have
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 09:02 +0100, Tim Murphy wrote:
Hi,
I'm not a maintainer or anything but I have hacked around in the bit
of code that implements the job-server. It's complicated and in my
case I realised that I actually didn't want it at all so I compiled
make without it.
hey, so
Hi
2009/5/6 Markus Duft md...@gentoo.org:
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 09:02 +0100, Tim Murphy wrote:
Do you really need it? Do you use sub-makes (i.e. do you have
makefiles that call make again on other makefiles)?
hmm. we're using automake, so i guess yes, every subdir is managed by a
sub-make.
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 17:56 +0100, Markus Duft wrote:
Hi!
ping...
I'm running make on x86 interix (SFU/SUA). All works like a charm, except
for occasional problems with multi-core machines (I'm not sure if the same
problems would occur on single cores too...).
I'm seeing two different
Hi!
I'm running make on x86 interix (SFU/SUA). All works like a charm, except
for occasional problems with multi-core machines (I'm not sure if the same
problems would occur on single cores too...).
I'm seeing two different problems, the bader one being a jobserver token
leak. Sometimes make
