[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: Paul Smith
Subject: Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option)
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 17:17:44 -0400

On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 23:12 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > 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.

No.  With -Otarget and -Ojob it's never the case that an entire sub-make
will "own" the output lock such that no other jobs running in parallel
from other sub-makes can display output.

This is something someone else mentioned the other day.

Doing this would seriously compromise the parallelization.  Given that
today people are more-or-less satisfied to have garbled output rather
than slow down their parallel builds, I find it impossible to believe
they'd rather have ordered output if it reduced parallelization.

When running in parallel it's always been the case, and is still the
case with -O, that you must consider all the targets that could possibly
be started by any make (at any level of recursion) as big grab-bag of
targets that could be run at any time (subject to prerequisite
relationships).  Recursion is not a "sequence point" in your build, when
parallelization is enabled.

-O in no way changes that behavior, all it does is ensure that output
from any individual line or target of the recipe will not interfere with
any other individual line or target.

reply via email to

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