This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: parallelized 'ld'?
- From: "Alexander Smundak" <asmundak at cisco dot com>
- To: "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>, "Cynbe ru Taren" <cynbe at muq dot org>
- Cc: "Paul Hilfinger" <hilfingr at EECS dot Berkeley dot EDU>, <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:43:17 -0700
- Subject: Re: parallelized 'ld'?
- References: <200307150234.h6F2YsNW028337@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU><87d6f63jes.fsf@muq.org> <87vfsyhi1v.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
> > * "make generates either too much output or no output at all. This leads
to
> > people developing half-baked solutions such as
> > if QUIET=1, echo "Compiling foo.c..."
> > Jam (make alternative) uses IMHO way better approach: by default, it
> > prints just the name of each target as it was built; if build fails,
> > it prints the offending command."
>
> Makefiles that don't print every command exactly as executed are
> abominations. It's only "too much output" when you don't need it, and
> you typically find out you need it after it's too late to turn on
> verbose output. Not to mention the joy of digging through the
> makefile to figure out the necessary incantation.
I am not proposing the change of the default behavior; it is rather an
alternative to the '-s' option. Please also note that the command fails,
it _will_ be printed, which in many cases will be the only thing needed.
I am not sure we have to be proud of it, but re-running make with default
options
on already built system generates in our case >1300 lines of output,
consisting of
very informative sequence:
Entering directory ...
xxxx is up to date.
Leaving directory ...
It's somewhat boring when you see it more than 5 times per day .-)
Alexander Smundak