Make 3.82 has inherited some issues in from 3.81 in features/parallelism
- and added some new ones in features/double_colon, options/dash-l, and
targets/SECONDARY.
All except those in targets/SECONDARY (which I do not 100% understand
yet) are related to tests using sleep for parallelization tests
On Aug 30, 10 19:52:48 +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
> That results in make not building reliable on our opensuse build system;
> I'm currently using the attached patch to increase the sleep times by a
> factor of four. A reasonable solution would probably use a configurable
> factor, so you can run
On Aug 31, 10 09:54:50 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 19:52 +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
> > All except those in targets/SECONDARY (which I do not 100% understand
> > yet) are related to tests using sleep for parallelization tests -
> > something highly unreliable on systems with l
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 19:52 +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
> All except those in targets/SECONDARY (which I do not 100% understand
> yet) are related to tests using sleep for parallelization tests -
> something highly unreliable on systems with lots of processors and
> high load.
Lots of processors s
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 16:10 +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote:
> In effect, the tests of make 3.81 failed on our build systems every now
> and then. For 3.82 this is worse, I was able to sometimes fail one of
> the tests even on my local workstation with 8 cores and not too much
> stuff running otherwise.
On Aug 31, 10 10:40:55 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> > I already wrote that this issue exists when make version 3.81 was
> > released, and the discussion wasn't exactly long or productive.
>
> It's hard for me to track issues long term via email. Is there a
> Savannah bug filed about this? That's t
> From: Paul Smith
> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:40:55 -0400
> Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
>
> Right, I didn't mean flock() or something; I just meant test for
> existence. But, doing a loop waiting for a file to exist in a UNIX
> shell vs. Windows command.com (for example) is not simple.
I don't see a
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 20:15 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Paul Smith
> > Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:40:55 -0400
> > Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
> >
> > Right, I didn't mean flock() or something; I just meant test for
> > existence. But, doing a loop waiting for a file to exist in a UNIX
> > shel
> From: Paul Smith
> CC: mh...@suse.de, bug-make@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:24:45 -0400
>
> Too bad GNU's version of sleep, that accepts fractional seconds, is not
> portable :-).
How about introducing a new Make function $(sleep) ? ;-)
___
B
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 20:32 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Paul Smith
> > CC: mh...@suse.de, bug-make@gnu.org
> > Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:24:45 -0400
> >
> > Too bad GNU's version of sleep, that accepts fractional seconds, is not
> > portable :-).
>
> How about introducing a new Make fu
> From: Paul Smith
> CC: mh...@suse.de, bug-make@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:41:44 -0400
>
> > How about introducing a new Make function $(sleep) ? ;-)
>
> I don't see how that can work...? We don't want make to sleep, we want
> the job make invokes to sleep (to emulate a compile that t
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 21:15 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Paul Smith
> > CC: mh...@suse.de, bug-make@gnu.org
> > Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:41:44 -0400
> >
> > > How about introducing a new Make function $(sleep) ? ;-)
> >
> > I don't see how that can work...? We don't want make to sleep
> From: Paul Smith
> Reply-To: psm...@gnu.org
> CC: mh...@suse.de, bug-make@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:57:16 -0400
>
> > A sub-make could sleep, no?
>
> What I'm saying is that if you have a rule like this:
>
> foo:
> $(sleep 0.10) echo hi
>
> The recipe is always
13 matches
Mail list logo
