Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:23:30 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2] Message-ID: <96526.1100258610@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:17:32 %2B0200." <20041112111732.GH41844@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20041112111732.GH41844@ip.net.ua>, Ruslan Ermilov writes: > >On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 11:24:12AM +0100, Harti Brandt wrote: >> It would actually give me _more_ control over make's behaviour. I could, > >> for example, build the tool with -j4, but run the tool with -j2. Suppose > >> that is a long running regression test that I don't want to occupy my >> 4 processor machine, but I want the tool for the test to build fast. >> >Here's the patch that changes the -j behavior the way I want it: I think that patch is a bad idea. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?96526.1100258610>