Re: [jamboost] -q option doesn't work

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-05 07:57:25

What about FAIL_EXPECTED interaction?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Markus Scherschanski" <mscherschanski_at_[hidden]>
To: <jamboost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 9:56 AM
Subject: RE: [jamboost] -q option doesn't work

> Hi David,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Abrahams [mailto:david.abrahams_at_[hidden]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 1:13 PM
> > To: jamboost_at_[hidden]
> > Subject: Re: [jamboost] -q option doesn't work
> >
> >
> > Examining your patch, it doesn't seem quite right:
>
> Let us see...
>
> > if( status == EXEC_CMD_FAIL && DEBUG_MAKE )
> > {
> > /* Print command text on failure */
> >
> > if( !DEBUG_EXEC )
> > printf( "%s\n", cmd->buf );
> >
> > printf( "...failed %s ", cmd->rule->name );
> > list_print( lol_get( &cmd->args, 0 ) );
> > printf( "...\n" );
> >
> > if( globs.quitquick ) ++intr;
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> > Is the intention to only quitquick if DEBUG_MAKE is set?
> > Also, does it handle FAIL_EXPECTED correctly?
>
> I have no idea, because that's exactly the way, perforce-jam does it, and
I
> don't know what they thought by doing this.
>
> I wondered myself too, but they did it like this.
>
> Elsewise just make an else-case without DEBUG_MAKE.
>
> Markus
>
> P.S.: You were right it only works without -d0. Maybe it's intended that
> this option is only useful for developing purposes.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> jamboost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>