Re: Intermittent parallel make rebuild failures (fwd)

[David Highley]

Forwarded message:
> From dhighley Tue Oct  5 11:57:27 2010
> Subject: Re: Intermittent parallel make rebuild failures
> To: address@hidden
> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 11:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
> In-Reply-To: <address@hidden>
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL8]
> Content-Length: 1322      
> 
> "Paul Smith wrote:"
> > 
> > On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 11:07 -0700, David Highley wrote:
> > > The latest version of Fedora 13 does not have a 3.82 verion of make so
> > > the only way to test would be to build from source which I can do. It
> > > may take me a while since were pretty busy right now.
> > 
> > Building make from source is pretty trivial: only one binary (plus
> > docs).  You can just run it out of the build directory if you want, no
> > need to install.
> > 
> > But no huge rush: I'm underwater at work for at least the next few weeks
> > as well.
> 
> OK, I down loaded and did a build of 3.82 on both Red Hat 5.1 and Red
> Hat 5.4 and it fails in the same way as 3.81-1 and 3.81-2. So 3.82 seems
> to regress for this issue.
> 
> > 
> > > Do we know if anyone is working on a newer update for Cygwin?
> > 
> > I don't; maybe a message to address@hidden would help?  I really don't
> > follow this at all (I know, lucky, right? :-)) but my vague impression
> > is that people are moving away from cygwin and towards mingw.

Is someone working on a newer version of make for Cygwin? Seems the most
recent version is 3.81-2 and we need 3.81-3 if it follows the Red Hat
distribution. There is a parallel build failure in the current versions
of make and we have tested the 3.82 version and see that it has
regressed and we have the same failure in that version.

> > 
> > > Paul has it really only been 15 years. I though our discussions went
> > > back to 1995 or so when you were working a Bay Networks.
> > 
> > Well, I've been using GNU make heavily since 1988 or 1989 so it's likely
> > we did have those discussions.  But I took over maintainership from
> > Roland in 1996 (as best as I recall).
> 
>