On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 03:21:39PM -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-02-06 at 20:18 +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > 4175643 write(2, "/bin/sh: bad-program: command no"...,
> > 40) = 40
> > 4175640 <... read resumed>"/bin/sh: bad-program: co
On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 11:23:03AM -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> OK, someone posted a question to SO and that led me to an hour or more
> of banging my head against a wall trying to understand what's
> happening... and I can't.
>
> The problem is that the user would like to invoke $(shell ...) and
>
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #56701 (project make):
FWIW, nproc(1) is part of GNU coreutils, it is based on nproc module from
gnulib, so the way it works is probably as much portable as one can get.
If GNU make was using gnulib directly, it would cost just a single invocation
of num_processors.
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #56701 (project make):
Let's try to fix this issue and avoid introducing any regressions.
For example, if -j is given without an argument and no -l option is provided,
behave as if -j -l $(nproc) was specified.
___
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 09:35:18AM -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 17:07 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Does it even make sense to use -j with no arguments? Should we
> > perhaps remove that possibility, or have some internal sane limit,
> > like twice the number of cores, say?
>
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:50:17PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: "Wang, Warner"
> > CC: "Bug-make@gnu.org"
> > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:42:04 +
> >
> > btw there is an internal limit, which is 4096 jobs, either on my mainframe
> > or PC. If I use "-j 4097" it will complain:
> >
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 02:37:03AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>I have some surprisingly good statistics. In ALT Linux Sisyphus
>(repository with 5000+ source packages) percentage of packages
>
> You have fallen for the trap [...]
It's full name (ALT GNU/*/Linux Sisyphus) is too long
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 01:51:50AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> I'll think about it some more maybe compile a bunch of stuff with the
> make from alpha, still a bit pissed at the fool who added a beta make
> to Debian since the old Makefile do make sense IMHO.
I have some surprisingly good sta
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:11:19AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've released GNU make 3.81beta3. Many bugs have been fixed and some
> new features added. My main immediate goal is to get everyone to test
> all the ports, and especially work out what to do about the various
> DOS/Window
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 11:33:11AM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
> %% "Art Haas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ah> The current CVS make produced the fatal error in the job.c file
> ah> this morning while the 'make install' process of installing the
> ah> latest GCC build was happening. The i
Hi,
The `shell' function implementation contains a long-standing potential
null dereference bug, proposed fix is attached.
--
ldv
2004-04-16 Dmitry V. Levin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* function.c (func_shell): When initializing error_prefix, check
that reading file
Hi,
The `shell' function implementation contains a long-standing potential
null dereference bug, proposed patch is attached.
--
ldv
2004-04-16 Dmitry V. Levin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* function.c (func_shell): When initializing error_prefix, check
that reading file
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greetings!
There is an ancient SEGV bug in file function.c which have a trivial fix
(attached). Strange why it haven't been fixed yet...
Regards,
Dmitry
+-----+
Dmi
13 matches
Mail list logo
