Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option)

2013-05-06 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 20:17:50 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii > Cc: bug-make@gnu.org > > > From: Paul Smith > > Cc: bug-make@gnu.org > > Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 12:56:48 -0400 > > > > On Sun, 2013-05-05 at 19:36 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > However, I wonder what was the reason for splittin

Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option)

2013-05-05 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> From: Paul Smith > Cc: bug-make@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 12:56:48 -0400 > > On Sun, 2013-05-05 at 19:36 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > However, I wonder what was the reason for splitting the definition of > > GMK_EXPORT in two, and putting each part in a different file. > > Well, beca

Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option)

2013-05-05 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2013-05-05 at 19:36 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > However, I wonder what was the reason for splitting the definition of > GMK_EXPORT in two, and putting each part in a different file. Well, because the gnumake.h file is intended to be installed into the user's /usr/include or similar, and

Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option)

2013-05-05 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> From: Paul Smith > Cc: bug-make@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 17:51:05 -0400 > > Eli, I did some cleanup in job.c to try to make things simpler and > reduce duplication. I tried to be careful but it's quite possible I did > something to disrupt the Windows version again. It's up to you if

Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option)

2013-05-04 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 12:55 -0400, Paul Smith wrote: > Suppose we do this: if we're about to invoke a line marked recursive > and we're in -Otarget mode, then before we run it we'll show the > current contents of the temp file (using the normal synchronized > output function). I've implemented thi

Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option)

2013-05-04 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> From: Paul Smith > Cc: stefano.lattar...@gmail.com, bug-make@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 17:17:44 -0400 > > -O in no way changes that behavior, all it does is ensure that output > from any individual line or target of the recipe will not interfere with > any other individual line or target

Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option)

2013-05-03 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 23:12 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > the "start" and "end" will have other stuff (not just the other targets > > in that sub-make, but ANY other targets that happen to finish during > > that time) between them. > > This last part (about ANY other targets) is not what I thoug

Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option)

2013-05-03 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> From: Paul Smith > Cc: stefano.lattar...@gmail.com, bug-make@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 15:30:18 -0400 > > On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 21:15 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > This will ensure that output from lines before the recursive make will > > > be shown before the targets in the recursiv

Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option)

2013-05-03 Thread Paul Smith
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 21:15 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > This will ensure that output from lines before the recursive make will > > be shown before the targets in the recursive make. It's not 100% > > identical but I can't see any way to do better. > > Why isn't it identical? It's not identic

Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option)

2013-05-03 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> From: Paul Smith > Cc: stefano.lattar...@gmail.com, bug-make@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 12:55:26 -0400 > > Suppose we do this: if we're about to invoke a line marked recursive and > we're in -Otarget mode, then before we run it we'll show the current > contents of the temp file (using the

possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option)

2013-05-03 Thread Paul Smith
I have a solution for this problem that I think will work well, and will be simple to implement. Suppose we do this: if we're about to invoke a line marked recursive and we're in -Otarget mode, then before we run it we'll show the current contents of the temp file (using the normal synchronized ou