Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 21:55:56 +0200 From: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> To: David Naylor <naylor.b.david@gmail.com> Cc: pgollucci@p6m7g8.com, Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports) Message-ID: <1243194956.21797.4.camel@hood.oook.cz> In-Reply-To: <200905242007.06917.naylor.b.david@gmail.com> References: <20090522.195350.193746535.chat95@mac.com> <20090524190131.0b30b101@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <1243182477.18007.18.camel@hood.oook.cz> <200905242007.06917.naylor.b.david@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-AUB9x9XsZQDcuhZviMHD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
David Naylor p=ED=B9e v ne 24. 05. 2009 v 20:07 +0200:
> On Sunday 24 May 2009 18:27:57 Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > Ion-Mihai Tetcu p=ED=B9e v ne 24. 05. 2009 v 19:01 +0300:
> > > On Sun, 24 May 2009 16:10:23 +0200
> > >
> > > Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > > > Ion-Mihai Tetcu p=ED=B9e v so 23. 05. 2009 v 13:51 +0300:
> > > > > > > - MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER defaults (but user defined) to number of
> > > > > > > cores
> > > > >
> > > > > This part looks OK, I wonder if there's any reason t ain't like t=
his
> > > > > now; Pav?
> > > > > -.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER)
> > > > > +MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER?=3D `${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
> > > > > _MAKE_JOBS=3D -j${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER}
> > > > > -.else
> > > > > -_MAKE_JOBS=3D -j`${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
> > > > > -.endif
> > > >
> > > > Wouldn't that mean an evaluation of the backtick command in every
> > > > make(1) invocation? That would be highly undesirable.
>=20
> I don't believe that is the case. =20
>=20
> Here is what I get with the patch applied (MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER not defined):
> /usr/ports/editors/openoffice.org-3# make -V MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER -V _MAKE_JO=
BS
> `/sbin/sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus`
> -j`/sbin/sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus`
>=20
> Wouldn't this indicate that the backtick command is not being evaluated?
Seems correct. But explain again, why you need this change? You cannot
use it to evaluate single/multi-processor machine in Makefile, as it's
not expanded there either.
And why should anything fail with -j1 but work with -j4? That is totally
unexpected.
--=20
Pav Lucistnik <pav@oook.cz>
<pav@FreeBSD.org>
It whines, glows and fades...
--=-AUB9x9XsZQDcuhZviMHD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Toto je =?UTF-8?Q?digit=C3=A1ln=C4=9B?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?UTF-8?Q?_=C4=8D=C3=A1st?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?=
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD)
iEYEABECAAYFAkoZpkgACgkQntdYP8FOsoI3sgCfRDhNxYYVcgr+apj+WhlrMufP
mecAoK3UWYZybYOFXwIlkDq1W9Qwk+jU
=sC0u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-AUB9x9XsZQDcuhZviMHD--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1243194956.21797.4.camel>