Re: Parallel Build with GNU make

2016-02-02 Thread Roland Schwingel
Sorry for following up on my own post,but there has been a "bug" in the last sentence... See for correction below Am 02.02.2016 um 08:35 schrieb Roland Schwingel: Hi... Eli Zaretskii wrote on 01.02.2016 20:14:17: > Add "--debug=j" to the make command-line switches an

Re: Parallel Build with GNU make

2016-02-01 Thread Roland Schwingel
Hi... Eli Zaretskii wrote on 01.02.2016 20:14:17: > Add "--debug=j" to the make command-line switches and see if it > launches more than one command at a time. > > Anyway, your makefile.mak file can be written in such a way as to > effectively prohibit parallelism, due to how it lays out depende

Re: [PATCH1/2] Use spawn() on Cygwin

2013-07-30 Thread Roland Schwingel
Hi... bug-make-bounces+roland.schwingel=onevision@gnu.org wrote on 30.07.2013 18:37:35: > On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 18:39 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > In general, I feel it's wrong to do this: Cygwin is a Posix platform, > > so it should be using the Posix code, to be as compatible with other

Re: [PATCH1/2] Use spawn() on Cygwin

2013-07-30 Thread Roland Schwingel
Hi Eli... Eli Zaretskii wrote on 30.07.2013 18:29:53: > From: Eli Zaretskii > To: Roland Schwingel > Cc: bug-make@gnu.org, p.fe...@samsung.com > Date: 30.07.2013 18:32 > Subject: Re: [PATCH1/2] Use spawn() on Cygwin > > > Cc: bug-make@gnu.org, Pavel Fedin &g

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Do not use DOS paths on Cygwin

2013-07-30 Thread Roland Schwingel
Hi... bug-make-bounces+roland.schwingel=onevision@gnu.org wrote on 30.07.2013 17:43:10: > > Currently make's configure suggests that it should use DOS-style paths on > > Cygwin. This is not true, and this assumption makes path-related mechanisms > > to work incorrectly. Currently Cygwin p

Re: [PATCH1/2] Use spawn() on Cygwin

2013-07-30 Thread Roland Schwingel
Hi... bug-make-bounces+roland.schwingel=onevision@gnu.org wrote on 30.07.2013 17:39:10: > > From: Pavel Fedin > > Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:42:23 +0400 > > > > Please take this patch, Cygwin team told that they would like to integrate > > with upstream. I have already posted it some time