Re: Another issue with -O?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Paul Smith <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 09:04:24 -0400
> 
> you may see this:
> 
>   xa
>   xb
>   a
>   $(MAKE) foo
>   xc
>   xd
>   b

If "a" appears before "xb", then that's all I ask for.

> > If we want it to be "no worse", then why do we need it at all, let
> > alone have it turned on by default?  I thought -O should actually
> > improve something, so "no worse" is too weak to describe that, IMO.
> 
> Obviously we gain synchronized output.

It's not synchronized.  It's just has a coarser granularity than what
we get without -O.  IOW, the chunks are larger, but still interlaced
in somewhat random order.

> I believe we can get to the point where anyone who can read and
> understand parallel output can even more easily read and understand the
> output from -O.

I'd surely like to get there ;-)