[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse
From: |
Stefano Lattarini |
Subject: |
Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse |
Date: |
Sun, 05 May 2013 00:44:12 +0200 |
Hi Paul.
On 05/05/2013 12:10 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 12:55 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
>> Suppose we do this: if we're about to invoke a line marked recursive
>> and we're in -Otarget mode, then before we run it we'll show the
>> current contents of the temp file (using the normal synchronized
>> output function).
>
> I've implemented this feature and it seems to work as expected. I also
> implemented the fix to the duplicate output being shown in some cases.
>
> I have two open issues I want to address before calling this feature
> done: first, fix make's writing of the command it's going to run (for
> rules that don't start with "@") as that's not working right. Second,
> fix the enter/leave issue. It turns out that these are currently
> somewhat bound together so I may have to solve the second one first.
>
The test 'features/output-sync' now fails for me:
Test timed out after 6 seconds
Error running /storage/home/stefano/src/gnu/make/tests/../make \
(expected 0; got 14): /storage/home/stefano/src/gnu/make/tests/../make \
-f work/features/output-sync.mk.1 -j --output-sync=target
Caught signal 14!
FAILED (4/6 passed)
Can you reproduce the failure? If not, let me know which information you
need to debug this, and I'll try to provide them.
Regards,
Stefano
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, (continued)
- 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, 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, 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 <=
- 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
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Paul Smith, 2013/05/05
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/05
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/06
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/01