> From: Paul Smith <psm...@gnu.org> > Cc: stefano.lattar...@gmail.com, bug-make@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 07:47:09 -0400 > > The way the user experiences the -Ojob option's results is that the > output of every line of each recipe is dumped as soon as that line is > complete.
I would suggest -Oline or -Ocommand for this. "Job" is not necessarily recognizable by users of Make for what we mean when we talk about that. > The issue of how -Otarget handles recursive make is, IMO, a detail > necessitated by the architecture of recursive make invocations. I don't > know that it's feasible to reflect that detail in the name. It is a detail that IMO significantly qualifies the "target" part. In particular, targets that include little or nothing except a recursive invocations will be entirely exempt from this "target" scope. > To me -Omake is the most problematic. -Omakefile is not much better; in > fact it might be worse (after all you can and often do invoke a > recursive make on the same makefile). It would be nice to be more clear > about the fact it applies only to recursive make invocations. Something > like -Osubmake might be more accurate, except that I don't think we use > the term "sub-make" in the documentation: we use "recursive make". Is > -Orecursive better? Yes, I think -Orecursive is better. _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
