Re: make question

2011-04-29 Thread Bob Bishop
Hi, This whole area is quite a mess. See for instance bin/10985 on interactions between -j, -B and .NOTPARALLEL -- Bob Bishop r...@gid.co.uk ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To u

Re: make question

2011-04-29 Thread Hartmut Brandt
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Roman Divacky wrote: RD>On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 08:50:27PM +0200, Hartmut Brandt wrote: RD>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Roman Divacky wrote: RD>> RD>> RD>On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 05:52:58PM +0200, Hartmut Brandt wrote: RD>> RD>> Hi Roman, RD>> RD>> RD>> RD>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Ro

RE: make question

2011-04-29 Thread Hartmut.Brandt
s/can/can't/ harti From: Arnaud Lacombe [lacom...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:37 AM To: Brandt, Hartmut Cc: Roman Divacky; hack...@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make question Hi, On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Hartmut Brandt wrote: >

Re: make question

2011-04-29 Thread Roman Divacky
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 08:50:27PM +0200, Hartmut Brandt wrote: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Roman Divacky wrote: > > RD>On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 05:52:58PM +0200, Hartmut Brandt wrote: > RD>> Hi Roman, > RD>> > RD>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Roman Divacky wrote: > RD>> > RD>> RD>You seem to have messed wit

Re: make question

2011-04-28 Thread Warner Losh
On Apr 28, 2011, at 7:37 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Hartmut Brandt > wrote: >> I think we can change this, because it would break makefiles that assume >> that the entire script is given to the shell in one piece. >> > I'm not sure to parse that. "We can chang

Re: make question

2011-04-28 Thread Arnaud Lacombe
Hi, On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Hartmut Brandt wrote: > I think we can change this, because it would break makefiles that assume > that the entire script is given to the shell in one piece. > I'm not sure to parse that. "We can change it because it would break stuff". That said, if somethi

Re: make question

2011-04-28 Thread Hartmut Brandt
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Roman Divacky wrote: RD>On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 05:52:58PM +0200, Hartmut Brandt wrote: RD>> Hi Roman, RD>> RD>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Roman Divacky wrote: RD>> RD>> RD>You seem to have messed with bsd make so I have a question for you :) RD>> RD>> Yeah, that was some time

Re: make question

2011-04-28 Thread Roman Divacky
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 05:52:58PM +0200, Hartmut Brandt wrote: > Hi Roman, > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Roman Divacky wrote: > > RD>You seem to have messed with bsd make so I have a question for you :) > > Yeah, that was some time ago ... > > RD>When a job is about to be executed in JobStart() a

Re: make question

2011-04-28 Thread Hartmut Brandt
Hi Roman, On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Roman Divacky wrote: RD>You seem to have messed with bsd make so I have a question for you :) Yeah, that was some time ago ... RD>When a job is about to be executed in JobStart() a pipe is created with RD>its ends connected to job->inPipe/job->outPipe. When the j

Re: make question

2000-05-13 Thread Tim Vanderhoek
On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 11:05:03PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote: > > but make prefers the .ads.lo rule instead of the .adb.lo, despites the > order in the .SUFFIXES. Using "make -d s" to trace dependencies and rules, > I get: FWIW, this works correctly on ~3.4-R. It must have gotten broken somewh