Re: [bug #33138] .PARLLELSYNC enhancement with patch

[Frank Heckenbach]

David Boyce wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Paul Smith <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I'm not excited about that term ("job"); it's kind of accurate, but in
> > the documentation for example we're really mushy about exactly what a
> > "job" is, vs. a "recipe" or a "command line" etc.  I'd like to pick some
> > terms for this, define them in a solid way, then clean up the
> > references.  It would be best to do this before the release to avoid
> > changing things later.
> >
> > For example, we currently use "target" as the name; maybe "recipe" is
> > better?
> >
> > If anyone has opinions I'm listening.
> 
> This seems quite wrong to me. I think it's inherent from the existence
> of the --jobs option that "job" must be synonymous with "recipe", even
> if that's not what was intended at the time. Therefore my HO is that
> not only does this one need a new name but "-O target" would be better
> renamed "-O job".
> 
> What's wrong with "line" for the line-by-line case? It's exactly the
> way make is documented, that each line of the recipe is fed to the
> shell in turn, and the documentation you just wrote for the new
> argument is all about lines; I see the word "line" 4 times in 2
> sentences. The whole thing seems clear and well written to me, but
> would be even more clear if the new option was called "-O line".
> 
> So I'd argue for:
> 
> -O line (new)
> -O job (current -O target)
> -O make

I'd also consider "line" as somewhat clearer to the user -- after
all in the Makefile it's just a line (modulo backspaces) that it's
referring to. (I don't care much whether the second one is called
"job", "target" or "recipe", though.)

> I also think it wouldn't hurt for the documentation of the default to
> contain a forward reference. Pending potential rename:
>
> --- a/doc/make.texi
> +++ b/doc/make.texi
> @@ -4136,7 +4136,7 @@ specified by giving an argument to the option
> (e.g.,  @samp{-Ojob} or
>  @table @code
>  @item none
>  The is the default: all output is sent directly as it is generated and
> -no synchronization is performed.
> +no synchronization is performed. It is identical to 
> @samp{--output-sync=target}
> 
>  @item job
>  Output from each individual line of the recipe is grouped and printed

That's not correct. There are two defaults: The default when no "-O"
option is given is no sync at all. The default with "-O" with no
argument is the same as "-O target". But this paragraph talks about
the former, so it's correct as it is.