Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 15:19:13 +0000 From: "J. Mallett" <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG> To: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: "J. Mallett" <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/make job.c job.h main.c make.1 make.c Message-ID: <20020413151913.GB26522@FreeBSD.ORG> In-Reply-To: <20020413053330.A96771@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200204131218.g3DCI0Z68354@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020413123044.GB13221@FreeBSD.ORG> <20020413053330.A96771@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 05:33:31AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 12:30:44PM +0000, J. Mallett wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 05:18:00AM -0700, David E. O'Brien wrote: > > > obrien 2002/04/13 05:18:00 PDT > > > > > > Modified files: > > > usr.bin/make job.c job.h main.c make.1 make.c > > > Log: > > > Prefer BSDmakefile over makefile and Makefile. > > > > It looks like from the modified files you also hit it with the > > I've said it before and I'll say it again -- CVS sucks and it hates me. At least if it were P4, it'd have a facility to go back and edit change messages *duck*. Anyway, might be a good idea to go back and do a forced commit to make.c, job.c, and job.h mentioning what actually changed in the given revisions, for the sake of the people who pick up development of our make(1), in oh, fifteen years or so, and want to know what BSDmakefile has to do with the renaming of a tiny function ;) Not that our make(1) will be meaningful a few years from now in all likelyhood. Speaking of which, with changes to try execing a command via a shell if it fails of its own accord, and with our job.c, NetBSD make(1) has gotten so far most of the way in buildworld though it could still crap out near the end I'm sure. That reminds me, in where we check for shell builtins, we iterate over a list of known builtins we might want, and if it is one of them, we execute it. We do this for every non-wildcard command (those get passed to the shell anyway)... This is a lot less efficient than trying to execute the command, and passing it to /bin/sh -c if that fails, in the best case, and in the worst case, my way is only slightly worse... The worst case, trying to execute a command that does not exist and never will work, is not something we should feel obligated to optimize for. Thoughts? If that seems reasonable I'll post my diffs relative to NetBSD make(1) should I not run into some place where it pukes. If anyone knows of a place where NetBSD's make(1) has been known not to work with what we need it to work with, please let me know so I can try to fix that. Thanks. -- jmallett@FreeBSD.org | C, MIPS, POSIX, UNIX, BSD, IRC Geek. http://www.FreeBSD.org | The Power to Serve "We all need mirrors to remind ourselves who we are -- I'm no different." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020413151913.GB26522>