Hi
2009/5/6 Markus Duft :
> On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 09:02 +0100, Tim Murphy wrote:
>> Do you really need it? Do you use sub-makes (i.e. do you have
>> makefiles that call make again on other makefiles)?
>
> hmm. we're using automake, so i guess yes, every subdir is managed by a
> sub-make. does bui
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 09:02 +0100, Tim Murphy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not a maintainer or anything but I have hacked around in the bit
> of code that implements the job-server. It's complicated and in my
> case I realised that I actually didn't want it at all so I compiled
> make without it.
hey, s
Hi,
I'm not a maintainer or anything but I have hacked around in the bit
of code that implements the job-server. It's complicated and in my
case I realised that I actually didn't want it at all so I compiled
make without it.
Do you really need it? Do you use sub-makes (i.e. do you have
makefiles
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 07:06 +0100, Markus Duft wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 17:56 +0100, Markus Duft wrote:
> > Hi!
>
> ping...
ping ping at least a comment on this would be cool... don't leave me
in the dark! i think my report is quite detailed, and not one of the
"make is broken - fix it"
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 17:56 +0100, Markus Duft wrote:
> Hi!
ping...
>
> I'm running make on x86 interix (SFU/SUA). All works like a charm, except
> for occasional problems with multi-core machines (I'm not sure if the same
> problems would occur on single cores too...).
>
> I'm seeing two diffe
