[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNU make 3.81beta4 released

From: Markus Mauhart
Subject: Re: GNU make 3.81beta4 released
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 00:19:24 +0100

"Paul D. Smith" <address@hidden> wrote ...
> Hi all;
> I've applied Eli's two patches, as described here:
> and here:
> I also applied (most of) the two patches from Markus on Savannah for the
> README.W32 and README.cvs files.
> The fix we had for g->changed was actually broken and caused many of the
> regression tests to fail, so I fixed it.

So my latest suggestion from Jan 21st actually was correct :-)

"Markus Mauhart" <address@hidden> wrote in message news:address@hidden
> To stay on the safe side IMHO we better map the old "+=" into logical "||=":
>  +       g->changed = g->changed || (commands_started > ocommands_started);

> I also went back into the archives and found the patch Eli sent for st
> being used without being initialized in dir.c.
> This is all committed to CVS as of a few minutes ago.
> Please take a look and see where we are now

I just updated my CVS; (autoreconf & configure & make update & make dist) 
inside cygwin.
Take this distribution and {configure & make} {inside cygwin and inside 
Take the msys+mingw-executable and use it inside cmd.exe for some test builds:
"no j", "j nothing|2|3|64|345", often 50-60 compilers running on 2 cpu core's.
-> Everything ok (as usual "j number" needs some "trick" to tunnel through my
makefile's single level of recursion; and my makefile sometimes shows a
mkdir-racecondition under high concurrency, to be fixed ...).
In the end, without patches I get factor 2 where I want it :-)

> I got really lost and
> confused after a while with the different threads and discussions and
> patches and stuff.  Markus; it would be helpful to me if you used the
> standard diff -u to generate patches and attached them to your emails

Ok. I will take another look into the numerous versions and pieces, and
if necessary submit such diff -u.

> rather than putting up tarballs somewhere else (BTW, I wasn't able to
> access the links you provided in your emails recently for some reason).

One link contained a typo:
right:  same......................................2006.01.22....
I'll check it from some other client pc too.

Best Regards,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]