From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Oct 14 01:05:30 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA26834
          for freebsd-current-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.15.68.22])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA26823
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from bde@godzilla.zeta.org.au)
Received: (from bde@localhost)
	by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA08631;
	Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:05:04 +1000
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:05:04 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199810140805.SAA08631@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com, jb@cimlogic.com.au
Subject: Re: gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc_tools/Makefile bug? (was Re: filesystem safety and SCSI disk write caching)
Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

>} All rules that build multiple targets may have the same problem.  Some
>} have been fixed by using .ORDER, but this is ugly , and it isn't necessary
>} unless the command[s] that build the files need to built them all together.
>
>Is it possible for make to determin that all the files will be built
>together? If so, then make  could be fixed to avoid running these
>commands multiple times in the parallel case.

No.  Not without telling it using something like .ORDER.

Bruce

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message