Ok, I guess what I mean by
>> will act differently
is that the internal order of execution is at least different, though
like you say, with properly written Makefiles, the end result should
be the same---which is all that matters---OK. Anyways Howard's
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> would be great tutorial ma
%% Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
dj> Anyways,
dj> $ make x& make y& wait
dj> cannot always be rewritten with -j.
Mm. I don't think I believe that. For example, of your makefile had at
the top:
.PHONY: all rx ry
all: rx ry
rx: ; $(MAKE) x
ry: ; $(MAKE) y
then
Dan Jacobson wrote:
Anyways,
$ make x& make y& wait
cannot always be rewritten with -j.
$ make -j[whatever number] x y
will act differently except for special cases of x and y;
probably when both x and y have no dependencies.
make x& make y& wait
will only work correctly if x and y have no depend
Dan Jacobson wrote:
Anyways,
$ make x& make y& wait
cannot always be rewritten with -j.
$ make -j[whatever number] x y
will act differently except for special cases of x and y;
probably when both x and y have no dependencies.
Anyways, with -j examples added to the manual, we would get on the
right
Anyways,
$ make x& make y& wait
cannot always be rewritten with -j.
$ make -j[whatever number] x y
will act differently except for special cases of x and y;
probably when both x and y have no dependencies.
Anyways, with -j examples added to the manual, we would get on the
right track about how to
