Re: patch to support output synchronization under -j

[David Boyce]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Paul Smith <address@hidden> wrote:
> I wonder if we can figure out a way to make this work better, as Eli
> asked.  Can we work out a way to handle "normal" rules (rules with "+"
> or $(MAKE)) and "sub-make" rules differently, so that output from normal
> rules wasn't collected behind a sub-make?  I'm not sure I see exactly
> how this could work.

Thinking, thinking, ...

> The other thing I was thinking is that this feature might want to be
> enabled via a command-line argument.  All the complex makefiles
> generated by automake, etc. for example cannot take advantage of this if
> you have to modify every makefile to add the special target.

Hmm, it feels like you've reversed position since last year? When I
submitted the patch for .ONESHELL it included a new "--one-shell" flag
and you rejected the flag part saying you didn't want make to "end up
like GNU tar" in the sense of having an overwhelming number of
options. Personally I don't see what's so bad about exposing useful
features at the command line, and I can't say I ever wished that GNU
tar would do less of it, but I figured that was your aesthetic and I'd
go with it.

That was when you came up with the --eval option, which I found
brilliant BTW. So I guess the first-order answer to your point would
be "there is a way to enable this at the command line and you invented
it": --eval=.PARALLELSYNC:". However, I personally like command-line
options and if you want a first-class flag you'll get no argument
here.

> [PARALLELSYNC vs OUTPUTSYNC]

I'm pretty agnostic on the name. I actually considered .OUTPUTSYNC too
but felt the name should expose the fact that it's a no-op unless -j
is in use. But I'm happy with it if that's the consensus.

David