[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.
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, (continued)
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/02
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Paul Smith, 2013/05/02
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/03
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Paul Smith, 2013/05/03
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/03
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Paul Smith, 2013/05/03
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/03
- possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Paul Smith, 2013/05/03
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/03
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Paul Smith, 2013/05/03
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option),
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Paul Smith, 2013/05/03
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/04
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Paul Smith, 2013/05/04
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/05/04
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse, Paul Smith, 2013/05/05
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/05/05
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse, Paul Smith, 2013/05/05
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/05/05
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse, David Boyce, 2013/05/05
- Message not available
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/05