>>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 08:35:15 -0400 (EDT), "Paul D. Smith"
>>>>> <invalid.nore...@gnu.org> said:
Paul> Update of bug #56701 (project make):
Paul> Item Group: Bug => Enhancement
Paul> _______________________________________________________
Paul> Follow-up Comment #1:
Paul> Actually -j without a number is useful: it's used in conjunction with
the -l
Paul> option to allow parallelism to be limited by system load rather than
an
Paul> explicit number of outstanding jobs.
Paul> I implemented a change which requires the -l option to be provided if
-j is
Paul> given without an argument, else you get an error.
Paul> However that's a large backward-compatibility change so I'm not sure
about it.
Paul> Just as an example, I had to modify quite a number of tests in the
GNU make
Paul> regression test suite after making this change. Of course, it's quite
Paul> reasonable to say that the usages in the regression test suite are not
Paul> appropriate to "real world" usages.
Paul> I'll need to think about this. If anyone has opinions on whether
this would
Paul> be a good change and/or how much breakage it would cause please let
me know.
Paul> I'm changing this to an enhancement because the current behavior is
(a)
Paul> documented, (b) useful, and (c) how make has worked for 30+ years.
The
Paul> question is can we find a way to avoid the downsides, and is the cost
in
Paul> backward-compatibiity worth it.
Please donʼt do this. When I type 'make -j', I mean it. If I get it
wrong and kill my box, thatʼs on me, make should not be handholding
here.
Robert
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
