[bug #65273] Potential bug in the info function?

2024-02-07 Thread Collin Funk
: None ___ Follow-up Comments: --- Date: Thu 08 Feb 2024 02:01:44 AM UTC By: Collin Funk Hello, I believe I found a bug in the way that the $(info ...) function is processed by GNU Make. I noti

[bug #65273] Potential bug in the info function?

2024-02-07 Thread Collin Funk
Follow-up Comment #1, bug#65273 (group make): I was able to reproduce this on a FreeBSD VM. The GNU Make in ports is version 4.3 and does not output the warnings. When using gmake from master they are outputted. On a separate note, FreeBSD fails when building in maintainer mode due to a #warning p

[bug #65273] Potential bug in the info function?

2024-02-08 Thread Collin Funk
Follow-up Comment #2, bug#65273 (group make): Finally got around to looking into this. From what I can tell it was an intentional change from commit 03ecd94488b85adc38746ec3e7c2a297a522598e. The previous commit doesn't warn and one referenced onward can be controlled with --warn=(ignore|warn|error

[bug #65273] Potential bug in the info function?

2024-02-08 Thread Collin Funk
Follow-up Comment #4, bug#65273 (group make): [comment #3 comment #3:] > It's usually a good idea to check the NEWS file for things that might cause differences in behavior Thanks. I'll do that next time first. :) I grep'd for the error message and found it through git blame so it didn't take too

[bug #65273] Potential bug in the info function?

2024-02-09 Thread Collin Funk
Follow-up Comment #7, bug#65273 (group make): [comment #6 comment #6:] > Leaving these checks disabled by default is not a good solution since the very people who need this help most, will not benefit from them. I agree. It took me a while to understand some of the GNU Make extensions a few years

Fix gcc SIZE_MAX redefined warnings.

2024-04-07 Thread Collin Funk
, etc. macros are checked. Feel free to reorder things if you'd like. CollinFrom 9926caaa85919844de983d2c7f1b54b2debe2f08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Collin Funk Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 19:44:23 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Fix gcc SIZE_MAX redefined warnings. * src/makeint.h: Include inttypes.h an

Re: Autodetect processing units with -j

2025-06-27 Thread Collin Funk
Paul Smith writes: > On Fri, 2025-06-27 at 14:31 +0200, wrotycz wrote: >> > Of course none of this is very relevant to the issue under >> > discussion. >> >> I'm lost now. > > What I'm trying to say is that the exact number of jobs used as a > default is not really that important. I have no pro

Re: Autodetect processing units with -j

2025-06-27 Thread Collin Funk
Paul Smith writes: > But I agree with, and others have requested that, parallelism being > limited in some way by available _memory_ and not just available CPU: > this seems very reasonable. The fly in the ointment is that, even > moreso than CPU, memory is not allocated up-front and by the time