Hi, On Fri, Feb 28 2020, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 2/27/20 12:04 PM, Paul Smith wrote: >> On Thu, 2020-02-27 at 16:58 +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>>> That's a problem then as were assuming a user's build system for this >>>> to work. I mean for now its fine but in the future wouldn't it de a >>>> good ideal to not assume this? >>> >>> It works fine for everybody. There's just an optimisation for people >>> with a GNU make jobserver available. I don't see a problem. >>> >>> If somebody wants to add an optimisation for their preferred build >>> system they can propose a patch. >> >> And/or they can suggest to other build systems that they also add support >> for this service. >> >> I'm not aware of any service like this which is supported by all build >> tools, so it's not like we're choosing this over something else that's more >> widely available. Actually as far as I know other build tools don't >> provide anything like it, portable or not. > > Recently Honza, me and others discussed LTO's interaction with build > systems, and that perhaps the module mapper could be generalized for > other purposes. (Yes, still need to resurrect my Make PoC)
see also the "Create a general jobserver client/server library" library suggested GSoC project at https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SummerOfCode. Martin
