From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Nov 12 11:23:32 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 72BEB16A4CE; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:23:32 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A146A43D2D; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:23:31 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iACBNUU4096527;
	Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:23:30 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:17:32 +0200."
             <20041112111732.GH41844@ip.net.ua> 
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:23:30 +0100
Message-ID: <96526.1100258610@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
cc: Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2] 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:23:32 -0000

In message <20041112111732.GH41844@ip.net.ua>, Ruslan Ermilov writes:
>
>On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 11:24:12AM +0100, Harti Brandt wrote:
>> It would actually give me _more_ control over make's behaviour. I could,
> 
>> for example, build the tool with -j4, but run the tool with -j2. Suppose
> 
>> that is a long running regression test that I don't want to occupy my 
>> 4 processor machine, but I want the tool for the test to build fast.
>> 
>Here's the patch that changes the -j behavior the way I want it:

I think that patch is a bad idea.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.