[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 22:33:56 +0300

> From: Paul Smith <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 14:41:25 -0400
> If you want different behavior you can change your rule to use "+" on
> the two echo lines, so that they're also considered recursive and not
> saved up.

If I do that, the echo from rec1 and rec2 mix up:

  D:\gnu\make-3.82.90_GIT_2013-05-01>gnumake -f mkfsync3 -j -O
  start rec2start <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
   rec1 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
  gnumake -f mkfsync simple
  gnumake -f mkfsync simple

Is this also expected?

Anyway, my mental model of what's going on under -O is now completely
shattered.  I cannot understand what good is this behavior:

> entire recipe and print it at the end, EXCEPT that output from a
> recursive line is not saved: that's the entire point of this feature, to
> allow sub-makes to show their output as they go.

Why is it important to make that exception?  And shouldn't we have an
option _not_ to make such an exception, but without -Omake,
i.e. without waiting for the whole session to end?  Whenever any
top-level recipe finishes, it is flushed to the screen as a single
unit.  Does this make sense?

reply via email to

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