[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option)
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 23:12:00 +0300

> From: Paul Smith <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 15:30:18 -0400
> On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 21:15 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > This will ensure that output from lines before the recursive make will
> > > be shown before the targets in the recursive make.  It's not 100%
> > > identical but I can't see any way to do better.
> > 
> > Why isn't it identical?
> It's not identical in two ways: first it's not identical to -Otarget
> because the output before and after the recursion are not shown in a
> continuous block.  In:
>   all:
>           @echo start
>           $(MAKE) -C subdir
>           @echo end
> the "start" and "end" will have other stuff (not just the other targets
> in that sub-make, but ANY other targets that happen to finish during
> that time) between them.

This last part (about ANY other targets) is not what I thought you had
in mind.

> > But I don't think there's a requirement to avoid showing incomplete
> > output.  The only requirement is not to mix output from two or more
> > parallel jobs, that's all.
> That's the lowest-level requirement.  But if that were the ONLY
> requirement we'd simply implement -Ojob and we'd be done.

That's a misunderstanding due to overloaded meaning of "job".  I meant
by that the entire sequence of commands that remake one target,
including any of recursive invocations needed for that.

So I guess we are back at square one, which is a pity.

reply via email to

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