Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:58:24 +0200 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2] Message-ID: <20041112115824.GA85834@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <96526.1100258610@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20041112111732.GH41844@ip.net.ua> <96526.1100258610@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 12:23:30PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > 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 coul= d, > >=20 > >> for example, build the tool with -j4, but run the tool with -j2. Suppo= se > >=20 > >> that is a long running regression test that I don't want to occupy my= =20 > >> 4 processor machine, but I want the tool for the test to build fast. > >>=20 > >Here's the patch that changes the -j behavior the way I want it: >=20 > I think that patch is a bad idea. >=20 Care to explain? Cheers, --=20 Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBlKVgqRfpzJluFF4RAkmFAJ41ckHUmu12Tefr51f/QfMCz6vX9ACfXYz8 NRcf3oxPP9edTzj+QNzN3kg= =CiLu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041112115824.GA85834>