[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: patch to support output synchronization under -j

From: Tim Murphy
Subject: Re: patch to support output synchronization under -j
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:43:53 +0100

I replied to this without using "reply all" and I apologise. :-)

The order of the output from separate recipes may be anything -
depends on how make schedules them but at least the output from any
particular recipe will be grouped together and not mixed with the
output from others, hence allowing you to associate errors with th
recipes that caused them.

I think it's an inevitable consequence that if you have a long-running
task then the output from it won't appear until it has completely
finished and you won't be able to watch the progress - in this scheme
there is no way to show "some" of the output whilst also ensuring that
it is not interspersed with output from other recipes.

An alternative might be to mark all lines of text with a unique job
number so that they can be reassembled later into a reasonable order.
I must say this doesn't suit me at all but it might make someone
happier. These features probably need to be switchable anyhow.

I come at this from the perspective that my logs are too large for
humans to read through and they are being indexed and summarised by
processes rather than people - hence the need for the format to be
highly parsable.  Humans only get called in when there are errors.  My
longest running tasks are much shorter than the build itself so not
getting progress info on them is not a killer.



On 15 April 2011 11:45, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:15:15 -0400
>> From: David Boyce <address@hidden>
>> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > Yes, but a few words about how is this semaphore supposed to get job
>> > done, and in fact what kind of "synchronization" will this bring to
>> > Make, would be appreciated.  I don't think you described the feature
>> > too much in your original post.
>> No, but what I did say was " I won't go into how it works because
>> that's already done at the URLs above". Do you have specific questions
>> not addressed there? They're both pretty short, and I really can't
>> tell what more needs to be said without some context.
> I lack the higher-level picture.  Can you describe in a few words how
> will this work in a running Make?  I don't mean the details of how
> files are locked and unlocked (I understand that part), I mean the
> larger picture, like how it will look to the user, how several
> programs running in parallel will write their output and in what order
> it will appear eventually on the screen.
> Thanks, and sorry for not being able to grasp all that from those URLS
> and the code.
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-make mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

You could help some brave and decent people to have access to
uncensored news by making a donation at:


reply via email to

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