From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 14:11:26 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 185 ************************************************** Monday 01 September 2003 Number 185 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: GNU make 3.81rc : Knut St. Osmundsen" 2 Re: makepkg : Andreas Buening 3 Re: GNU make 3.81rc : Andreas Buening **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 00:34:00 +0200 From: "Knut St. Osmundsen" Subject: Re: GNU make 3.81rc Andreas Buening wrote: > Hello! > > I've uploaded a new version of make: > binaries: http://unix.os2site.com/pub/binary/make-3_81rc1-bin.zip > sources: http://unix.os2site.com/pub/source/make-3_81rc1.zip > This is release candidate 1. Please, give it a try so that > the final 3.81 will be the first official release with working > OS/2 support. > > Notes: > The parallelization stuff should work now. > All internal tests work fine. > > The parallelization code has been rewritten since make 3.76. > The new "job server" is supposed to share its n jobs between > _different_ sub makes in a (Posix) reliable way. > See http://make.paulandlesley.org/jobserver.html for details. Yep, it seems to work now. Excellent! The pipe handle leak is still there though. We see it alot when building the LIBC and EMX related stuff. It's not a pressing problem anylonger since the workaround is to add -h5024 to EMXOPT. In case this is EMX related it would be good to find out why this happens. Could you just take a quick look at how pipes and such are handled when spawning child processes? Kind Regards, knut **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 07:57:39 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: makepkg Michael Zolk wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 05:36:18PM +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: > > Michael Zolk wrote: > > > > > > Shouldn't there be a separate package for the tools and documentation > > > needed to create packages? > > > > The tools and their docs should be in one package or what do you > > mean? > > Of course. I meant if it would make sense to put the tools for package > creation in a seperate package, and only the stuff needed by every user to > install packages in ux2_base. For two or three extra REXX scripts we don't need an extra package. I would prefer one package. > > > How would a Rexx 'makepkg' script fit into the build system? Somehow > > > I'm still more comfortable with Rexx than with shell scripts... :% > > > > REXX .cmd files are also shell scripts in some sense, in contrast > > to binaries. ;-) > > :) Can Rexx scripts be called from make files? If REXX scripts can be called from your shell, yes. :-) Bye, Andreas **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 07:58:07 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: GNU make 3.81rc Knut St. Osmundsen wrote: [make] > The pipe handle leak is still there though. We see it alot when building > the LIBC and EMX related stuff. It's not a pressing problem anylonger > since the workaround is to add -h5024 to EMXOPT. The number of file handles needed by make should be proportional to the number of child processes running simultaneously. From this high number (5024) I conclude that this is not the case, i.e. you lose one handle per spawn()? > In case this is EMX related it would be good to find out why this > happens. Could you just take a quick look at how pipes and such are > handled when spawning child processes? You're joking. ;-) For starting child processes I do a lot of fcntl() calls with and without FD_CLOEXEC so I really can't say which handle is lost. It would be very helpful if you could provide me with a sample Makefile which shows this effect. Bye, Andreas