Re: Another issue with -O?

[David Boyce]

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Paul Smith <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 14:02 +0200, Reinier Post wrote:
>> Using a separate utility seems to be a clean
>> solution here, and that is fact how it was originally done:
>>
>>   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-make/2011-04/msg00018.html

There's no "originally" here. I wrote the utility above (which was not
the first; others (like Tim) have written similar tools but maybe not
released them as open source or just not announced them on this list).
But the utility was only a practice run for the make patch which I
sent in right around the same time, so the only difference in
originality is that the builtin version is subject to the rhythm of
GNU make's release schedule which is ... languid? unhurried? stately?

> I think having this facility built into make is a win, especially as
> parallel builds become predominant.  I would be even more happy about it
> if we can get it to the point where it can be enabled by default, and
> users don't even have to worry about it.

I agree with Paul. This is something that can't really be done right
by an external tool.

David