On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 18:21, Marc Espie wrote: > I've been thinking some more about it. > > POSIX says very little about parallel makes. > > The more I think about it, the more I think gnu-make's approach on this is > stupid: if a job errors out in a fatal way, what do we gain if we keep > going ? Especially for high -j values, the quicker we die, the better, > as far as the error is concerned. > > (note that, in sequential mode, the first fatal error will kill us, so > there's > no point in considering further stuff running).
I don't see what we gain by killing jobs. If the scheduler dice had come down differently, maybe those jobs would finish. Here's a downside, albeit maybe a stretch. What if the job doesn't like being killed? You're changing behavior here. Previously, the only way a job was interrupted was if the operator did it. In that case, I will pick up the pieces. I think letting the running jobs finish is actually a better match to the sequential make's behavior.
