[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Compilation order

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: Compilation order
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:50:59 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

Hi Paul,

* Paul Smith wrote on Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 09:18:15PM CET:
> On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 22:06 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > BTW, while you're here, is there chance for a new GNU make release
> > soonish with the bug fixed that prevented GCC from using dependency
> > tracking?  (IIRC it dealt with order-only deps.)
> Hi Ralf; sorry for the delay.

No worries.

> Is this bug already fixed, and just awaiting a release?  Or is it still
> open?  Do you have a bug#?

I'm not sure whether it's fixed.  I think it's first mentioned here,
which also points to some bug numbers:

> I'm especially interested in packages with very large numbers of targets
> and/or variables; so any large-ish package implementing non-recursive
> make for example would be useful for testing.
> Any pointers to such packages would be appreciated.

You can try GraphicsMagick for a larger nonrecursive build.
OpenMPI is large all in all, has many variables, but only parts
that are nonrecursive, so I have no idea whether it is a good
test for you.

> I wanted to do
> glibc which is where the memory usage situation was first reported, but
> they don't seem to be creating buildable tarballs anymore and my trivial
> attempt to run "cvs co", "./configure", and "make" failed miserably :-/.

Given that they advertise their CVS tree stability, I think that would
qualify for a bug report then.  I guess for testing you could try
checking out their last release tag though.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]