I have added an updated patch to bug #51200 and hope that you will reconsider
adding the functionality into next release. It is true that SIGUSR is already
used for debug toggling, but the behavior of SIGUSR1 isn't changed to
decreasing number of jobs until a SIGUSR2 signal is received. So make wil
Thanks for your feedback!
> On the other hand, it's a complex change (I'm not convinced that your
> implementation is complete: for example, it's not immediately clear to
> me how the decrement handles the "free token" concept of the job server
> implementation...
The variable decrease_jobs is se
On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 00:26 +0200, Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 15:42:51 -0400
> Paul Smith wrote:
> > It does look like we need to make a new release soon.
>
> If so, is there anything I can do to get the functionality of my
> contributed patch in bug #51200 into the upcoming ne
On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 15:42:51 -0400
Paul Smith wrote:
> It does look like we need to make a new release soon.
If so, is there anything I can do to get the functionality of my
contributed patch in bug #51200 into the upcoming new release?
Best regards Henrik
__
On 04/04/18 03:42 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 13:03 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
After all the vibrant discussion I was at least expecting a reply that
says "okay .. so that works" or perhaps a "ver 4.2.2 patches?" or
something.
Well, we thought it would work and it did work, an
On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 13:03 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> After all the vibrant discussion I was at least expecting a reply that
> says "okay .. so that works" or perhaps a "ver 4.2.2 patches?" or
> something.
Well, we thought it would work and it did work, and those fixes are in
the codebase... s
After all the vibrant discussion I was at least expecting a reply that
says "okay .. so that works" or perhaps a "ver 4.2.2 patches?" or
something.
What bothers me is that these patches are only needed on a i686 system
thus far.
Dennis
---
Please don't reply only to me: discussions belong on the mailing lists.
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 15:32 -0400, Rob Holbert wrote:
> The key in that definition is "depends on their first letter", not
> "the capitalization of their first letter". But in any event, if you
> don't have a clear definition
ake@gnu.org
Subject: Re: $(sort) - what is "lexical order"? (was RE: Follow-up)
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> I agree that the manual should document the fact that the sort function
> does not sort according the current LC_COLLATE value but instead always
>
> GNU make uses the standard C runtime function qsort(3) to perform its
> sorting, with a comparison function of the standard C runtime function
> strcmp().
...
> The builtin sort function DOES sort. It may not sort the way you would
> prefer, but it sorts in a standard, repeatable, well-defined w
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> I agree that the manual should document the fact that the sort function
> does not sort according the current LC_COLLATE value but instead always
> uses the standard ASCII (or LC_COLLATE="C") order.
>
> But I will not say that it doesn't sort l
There is no standard definition of "lexical order" that I'm aware of
that means only, and exactly, sorted according to the current locale
collation definition. The free dictionary defines it as:
the arrangement of a set of items in accordance with a recursive
algorithm, such as th
Putting OP's reply on the record.
From: Rob Holbert [mailto:robholb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 04:49
To: Martin Dorey
Subject: Re: $(sort) - what is "lexical order"? (was RE: Follow-up)
Wow,
Just putting your sources in order y
uot; | fmt -w1 | sort)';
echo 'L:=$(call strcoll,B a)'; } | make -f - -p 2>&1 | grep '^L '
L := a B
martind@whitewater:~$
From: Rob Holbert [mailto:robholb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 10:13
To: Martin Dorey
Subject: Re: $(sor
earc@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Rob Holbert
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 12:24
To: bug-make@gnu.org
Subject: Follow-up
Wanted to followup to my earlier email. Attached is the smallest makefile I
could create to demonsterate the issue.
or
#does not sort lexically like expected
LIST = $(sort widget
Wanted to followup to my earlier email. Attached is the smallest makefile I
could create to demonsterate the issue.
or
#does not sort lexically like expected
LIST = $(sort widget.c main.c ad.c Buzzer.c)
#target
all: list
list:
@echo $(LIST)
.PHONY: all list
Previous email:
Hello,
I ran acro
16 matches
Mail list logo
