[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [SCM] make branch, master, updated. 4.3-234-gf6ea899d

From: Frank Heckenbach
Subject: Re: [SCM] make branch, master, updated. 4.3-234-gf6ea899d
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 07:31:02 +0200

>     [SV 13862] Implement the .WAIT special target
>     The next version of the POSIX standard defines parallel execution
>     and requires the .WAIT special target as is implemented in some other
>     versions of make.
>     * doc/make.texi (Parallel Disable): A new section to discuss ways in
>     which parallel execution can be controlled.  Modify cross-refs to
>     refer to this section.

I appreciate the addition of this feature. Some small comments about
the documentation:

> As with targets provided to @code{.NOTPARALLEL}, @code{.WAIT} has
> an effect only when building the target in whose prerequisite list
> it appears.  If the same prerequisites are present in other targets,
> without @code{.WAIT}, then they may still be run in parallel.
> Because of this, @code{.WAIT} is an unreliable way to impose
> ordering than defining a prerequisite relationship.

Is the last sentence grammatically correct? I'm not a native
speaker, but I'd have expected "a more unreliable way" or "a less
reliable way".

Also, you might want to say "@code{.NOTPARALLEL} and @code{.WAIT}
are ...", since AIUI this applies to both of them.

Can several ".WAIT" targets appear in the same rule? I'd expect so,
but you may want to mention it, i.e. will

  all: one .WAIT two three .WAIT four

cause one to be run before two and three, the latter ones possibly
in parallel, and all of them before four?

reply via email to

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