This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: how to make sure subprocesses die?
- From: Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa dot com>
- To: The Cygwin Mailing List <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:02:07 -0600
- Subject: Re: how to make sure subprocesses die?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55D33D15 dot 2030401 at gmail dot com> <47B92080-8E07-4832-9520-A183E3436070 at etr-usa dot com> <55D447C5 dot 7000002 at gmail dot com>
On Aug 19, 2015, at 3:09 AM, Noel Grandin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 2015-08-18 04:31 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>> Works for me.
>> Disagree? Provide a replicable, simple test case to show it.
> This is the main LibreOffice build, and it's a multi-million line codebase, so shrinking the problem is my first priority :-)
So on the one hand, you have one of the simplest real-world build systems (Exuberant Ctags’) and it works fine, and you have one of the most complicated (LO’s) and it doesn’t work as expected.
Somewhere in that vast gap is your answer.
Instead of trying to shrink LO, what happens if you build LO to completion, then touch a common header file that causes another dozen or so files to need rebuilding? Does it recur? What happens if that header file spans multiple subsystems within LO, vs being confined in its effects to just one subsystem?
What I’m getting at is, maybe your problem is in the way one make(1) instance spawns another, something that doesn’t happen in non-nested build systems, as with ctags. If it all works fine when you’re only rebuilding one subsystem with a single make(1) instance, but fails with nested make(1) calls...
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple