[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option |
Date: |
Fri, 03 May 2013 15:22:26 +0300 |
> From: Paul Smith <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 07:47:09 -0400
>
> The way the user experiences the -Ojob option's results is that the
> output of every line of each recipe is dumped as soon as that line is
> complete.
I would suggest -Oline or -Ocommand for this. "Job" is not
necessarily recognizable by users of Make for what we mean when we
talk about that.
> The issue of how -Otarget handles recursive make is, IMO, a detail
> necessitated by the architecture of recursive make invocations. I don't
> know that it's feasible to reflect that detail in the name.
It is a detail that IMO significantly qualifies the "target" part. In
particular, targets that include little or nothing except a recursive
invocations will be entirely exempt from this "target" scope.
> To me -Omake is the most problematic. -Omakefile is not much better; in
> fact it might be worse (after all you can and often do invoke a
> recursive make on the same makefile). It would be nice to be more clear
> about the fact it applies only to recursive make invocations. Something
> like -Osubmake might be more accurate, except that I don't think we use
> the term "sub-make" in the documentation: we use "recursive make". Is
> -Orecursive better?
Yes, I think -Orecursive is better.
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, (continued)
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Paul Smith, 2013/05/01
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/01
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Paul Smith, 2013/05/01
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/01
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Tim Murphy, 2013/05/02
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Paul Smith, 2013/05/02
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/02
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Paul Smith, 2013/05/02
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/03
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Paul Smith, 2013/05/03
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Paul Smith, 2013/05/03
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/03
- possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Paul Smith, 2013/05/03
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/03
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Paul Smith, 2013/05/03
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/03
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Paul Smith, 2013/05/03
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/04
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Paul Smith, 2013/05/04
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/05/04