> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:15:15 -0400
> From: David Boyce
> Cc: psm...@gnu.org, bug-make@gnu.org
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Yes, but a few words about how is this semaphore supposed to get job
> > done, and in fact what kind of "synchronization" will this bri
> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:30:42 -0400
> From: David Boyce
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , bug-make@gnu.org
>
> I don't know why this hasn't occurred to me or the authors of similar
> programs before, but it appears to be possible to get a lock on any
> writable file descriptor - for instance stdout or st
I replied to this without using "reply all" and I apologise. :-)
The order of the output from separate recipes may be anything -
depends on how make schedules them but at least the output from any
particular recipe will be grouped together and not mixed with the
output from others, hence allowing
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 07:18 +0100, Tim Murphy wrote:
> Right, of course :-) That is the obvious reason for using files,
> thanks! I was biased against writing things to disc which is probably
> silly, because it's probably not slow when compared to the size of the
> job that's running.
I think y
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:45 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> I lack the higher-level picture. Can you describe in a few words how
> will this work in a running Make? I don't mean the details of how
> files are locked and unlocked (I understand that part), I mean the
> larger picture, like how it will
> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:31:43 -0400
> From: David Boyce
> Cc: psm...@gnu.org, bug-make@gnu.org
>
> and I've attached output logs "without.txt" and "with.txt", both using
> -j for unlimited jobs. You'll notice that in without.txt the output of
> recipes is separated; all the BEGINNING lines sh
> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:43:53 +0100
> From: Tim Murphy
> Cc: David Boyce , bug-make@gnu.org
>
> I think it's an inevitable consequence that if you have a long-running
> task then the output from it won't appear until it has completely
> finished and you won't be able to watch the progress - i
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:30 PM, David Boyce wrote:
> I don't know why this hasn't occurred to me or the authors of similar
> programs before, but it appears to be possible to get a lock on any
> writable file descriptor - for instance stdout or stderr, or one of
> the jobserver-fds. I just change
Hello everybody.
On Friday 15 April 2011, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Btw, there will be other side effects, at least on non-Posix
> platforms, due to the fact that stuff that was supposed to go to the
> screen is redirected to a file instead. Some programs sense that and
> behave differently, e.g. wi
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> So effectively, whenever a job finishes, its parent Make takes the
> semaphore, outputs all of the output of that job to the screen, then
> releases the semaphore, is that right?
Yes, exactly.
> And how do you communicate the name of the se
> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:37:13 -0400
> From: David Boyce
> Cc: psm...@gnu.org, bug-make@gnu.org
>
> > Finally, wouldn't it be a potential problem top inherit so many
> > handles to subordinate processes (2 for each running job)? We could
> > run out of available handles in deeply recursive jo
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 18:09 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > But yes, any feature
> > which consumes additional resources increases the risk of running out
> > of that resource. I don't know that recursion comes into it though,
>
> Each sub-Make inherits all the file descriptors of all its parents,
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> But this new option uses up 2 additional files per job, doesn't it?
One or two, as discussed elsewhere in this thread.
> Each sub-Make inherits all the file descriptors of all its parents,
> grandparents, etc. If a sub-Make was launched w
> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:39:56 -0400
> From: David Boyce
> Cc: psm...@gnu.org, bug-make@gnu.org
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > But this new option uses up 2 additional files per job, doesn't it?
>
> One or two, as discussed elsewhere in this thread.
>
> > Eac
> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:12:19 -0400
> From: David Boyce
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , bug-make@gnu.org
>
> Attached is an updated patch with some improvements:
Thanks.
> - It uses stdout as its semaphore.
Can Make be invoked with its stdout closed by the parent process? If
it is, will this still
> What about the other issue: with the fact that output from a recipe is
> only shown when the entire recipe is done. I think this is a serious
> drawback, at least in some use cases. Can anything be done about
> that?
The only thing that I can imagine is that one would allow one recipe
to have
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Can Make be invoked with its stdout closed by the parent process? If
> it is, will this still work?
I've tried to code it such that if anything goes wrong setting up the
sync, of which a closed stdout would be one example, it prints a
messa
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:37:13 -0400
From: David Boyce
it's more a question of how many parallel jobs a given make process is
managing since limits on file handles/descriptors are per process.
What about people who use "make -j" without limits?
They're idiots. I've never
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 19:54 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> What about the other issue: with the fact that output from a recipe is
> only shown when the entire recipe is done. I think this is a serious
> drawback, at least in some use cases. Can anything be done about
> that?
I don't see how. The
I wish I could play with one of those Connection machines and find out
about the bottlenecks at j=0.25*cpus that I can see on some machines
:-(
Regards,
Tim
On 15 April 2011 19:32, Howard Chu wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>
>>> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:37:13 -0400
>>> From: David Boyce
>>> i
> From: Paul Smith
> CC: David Boyce , bug-make@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:53:52 -0400
>
> On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 19:54 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > What about the other issue: with the fact that output from a recipe is
> > only shown when the entire recipe is done. I think this is a
21 matches
Mail list logo
