Re: Regression caused by Commit: 5bd7ad2b225b ("Preserve the real value of -jN in MAKEFLAGS using jobserver.")

[Sven C. Dack]

On 30/10/17 21:22, Paul Smith wrote:
> If we see -j in a makefile setting of MAKEFLAGS, we could:
>
>     1. Always silently ignore it (today's behavior).
>     2. Always print a message then ignore it.
>     3. Treat it the same way as a recipe with $(MAKE) -j: that is, start a
>        new jobserver group for this sub-make (and print a message if we're
>        already part of a different jobserver group).
>
> Personally I lean towards #3, even if it does allow people to do
> bizarre things.

I like 3, too. It gives more options to Makefile authors. We will only 
see more parallelism in the future, with more cores per CPU and people 
trying to utilise the hardware anyway they can. Who knows how helpful it 
might become.

Also, the -l option (load limiting) when set should get passed along to 
make it more meaningful - unless it, too, receives a new value for 
whatever reason.